| Author |
Message |
Martin Kallander
|
 Posted: Fri 26 Jan, 2024 8:09 pm Post subject: what are the dots on the plates of this armor? |
 |
|
I'm considering making an armor based on the one depicted on this carving but I'm uncertain of what the dots on the plates represent. My first guess would be rivets, however I'm aware that there is no evidence of that from the time so if anyone has any insights into what the dots represent and how they might relate to the construction of the armour please share it with me.
-Martin
|
|
  |
 |
Greyson Brown
|
| Posted: Sat 27 Jan, 2024 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not familiar with the image or its context, but my first thought was stitching holes.
"So long as I can keep the path of honor I am well content."
-Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The White Company
|
|
|
|
|
Victor R.
|
| Posted: Sat 27 Jan, 2024 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Those appear to be representing lamellar armor plates. Each plate would have been punched with a series of holes for lacing together the armor - the carving simply doesn't show the lacing material.
However, given the top/bottom placement of the holes, they could have been intended to be put together using steel rings. If you look at the thread linked in below you might be able to see some of the photos of a project by Boris Bedrosov putting together an Ottoman armor of plates and maille.
http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18577&highlight=
The pictures on the first page are pretty different from what you're seeing in your carving, but I think some of the things he did later were more like what you're looking for - I just don't know how many of the pictures survived and the site is working too slowly for me to really check each page.
That shape of plate also showed up on brigandines, and would have been riveted to the back of a textile coat/vest style garment, but I don't think that the style represented in carving would have been put together in that manner. If you could provide a bit more on the culture and era, you might be able to find people with better knowledge about how such armor was constructed, and which method (lacing, connecting with rings, or affixing to textile with rivets) would have been the most likely approach. I'm leaning towards rings the way that is depicted as most of the laced lamellars I've seen didn't have the holes set up that way and tended to overlap, not abut.
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Kallander
|
| Posted: Tue 30 Jan, 2024 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm not familiar with the image or its context, but my first thought was stitching holes. |
This feels wrong to me because I don't see a reason for depicting the holes but not the lacing, it's a carving that is supposed to depict an armor being worn after all so not including the part keeping it together seems nonsensical. For context it's an Armenian carving of Goliath from the 10th century
| Quote: | | the carving simply doesn't show the lacing material. |
Why would they do that? It's not like it's an actual armor whose lacing has decayed with time, if the depicted armor used lacing surely they would have just carved lacing onto it?
| Quote: | | they could have been intended to be put together using steel rings |
I should have included the details of the carving in my post, sorry for forgetting to. It's from 10th century Armenia and I do not rings attached to plates was done there at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Victor R.
|
| Posted: Tue 30 Jan, 2024 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Kallander wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm not familiar with the image or its context, but my first thought was stitching holes. |
This feels wrong to me because I don't see a reason for depicting the holes but not the lacing, it's a carving that is supposed to depict an armor being worn after all so not including the part keeping it together seems nonsensical. For context it's an Armenian carving of Goliath from the 10th century
| Quote: | | the carving simply doesn't show the lacing material. |
Why would they do that? It's not like it's an actual armor whose lacing has decayed with time, if the depicted armor used lacing surely they would have just carved lacing onto it?
| Quote: | | they could have been intended to be put together using steel rings |
I should have included the details of the carving in my post, sorry for forgetting to. It's from 10th century Armenia and I do not rings attached to plates was done there at the time. |
Have you ever tried to carve lacing in stone? How about rings?
You have a tendency to ask questions, then completely dismiss any answers you get. Since you already seem to know the answer is something other than the feedback people give you, maybe you should just do whatever it is you think is correct since you have an obvious bias and are looking for people to support your bias rather than give you accurate answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Len Parker
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Kallander
|
| Posted: Wed 31 Jan, 2024 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it does look quite similar! goliath's pose implies that his vambraces fully covers his forearms instead of half like the roman one, but the basic construction looks almost identical! it's odd that such a unique shape appears in completely different parts of the world and 800 years apart. on the subject of the forearms though, i think it's possible the artisan originally put the left forearm much lower and then changed his mind: 
alternatively the armor is a cuirass and a separate skirt, or there is a decorative partial row there that is supposed to give the appearance of that, but i think the phantom forearm better explains the strange dots in that area.
| Quote: | | Have you ever tried to carve lacing in stone? How about rings? |
there are carvings of lacing, if the carver wanted to depict such lacing he most likely would have done so.
| Quote: | | You have a tendency to ask questions, then completely dismiss any answers you get. Since you already seem to know the answer is something other than the feedback people give you, maybe you should just do whatever it is you think is correct since you have an obvious bias and are looking for people to support your bias rather than give you accurate answers. |
Please act civil. I have a number of ideas for how it might be constructed, that does not make it unreasonable to ask for other people's input. So far all the suggestions presume that the carving is somehow incomplete or wrong, which I try to avoid assuming as a general rule, at least before trying to make sense of the carving as it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Len Parker
|
|
|
|
|
Victor R.
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Feb, 2024 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Kallander wrote: | | [Please act civil. I have a number of ideas for how it might be constructed, that does not make it unreasonable to ask for other people's input. So far all the suggestions presume that the carving is somehow incomplete or wrong, which I try to avoid assuming as a general rule, at least before trying to make sense of the carving as it is. |
Bless your heart!
I suppose you've never heard of "artistic license". Carvings and even paintings and illustrations often depict "concept" rather than "100% fact". You've been given three likely explanations, with one of those explanations being tagged as the most likely given the era and the culture, however you reject these as they do not fit your seeming bias. You are trying to take something carved a millennia or more ago and treat it as though it were a photograph, rather than an interpretation.
Good luck finding the answer you want, whether it is correct or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Kallander
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Feb, 2024 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes two close lacing holes giving the appearance of a dot is a possibility that i think is reasonable, especially useful was the information dan shared in the topic you linked that the terracotta armors are not riveted, since their dot layout is very similar to the armor i'm interested in. before this the main contention i had on lacing dots was that the plates doesn't seem to overlap like they usually do, but the chinese must clearly have had a good solution to this! dan doesn't look very active anymore but if anyone has additional information on the terracotta armors' construction then that would be very useful.
this tibetan armor for example has dot lacing, however the plates overlap which is why i was hesitant on the idea of dot lacing for the armenian armor since the plates just seem to be adjacent or overlap very little on that one
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Kallander
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Feb, 2024 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Victor R. wrote: | | I suppose you've never heard of "artistic license". Carvings and even paintings and illustrations often depict "concept" rather than "100% fact" ... You are trying to take something carved a millennia or more ago and treat it as though it were a photograph, rather than an interpretation. |
but why would i assume it's artistic license when the depicted shape can be explained without resorting to that? it doesn't make sense to me to speculate on how the carving might deviate from the armor it is depicting, at that point you can make just about anything and still call it a recreation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Millman
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Feb, 2024 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Mr. Kallander,
Have you been able to determine whether the carving was originally polychrome? You should be able to find archaelogical reports that discuss the question. If it once was painted but the paint has been lost to time, then many details may now be missing, including lacing patterns.
I hope this proves helpful.
Best,
Mark Millman
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Kallander
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Feb, 2024 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Millman wrote: | | Have you been able to determine whether the carving was originally polychrome? |
I have not been able to find information on that yet but it was most likely colored originally. I will update when/if I find information on it.
| Quote: | | many details may now be missing, including lacing patterns |
that is a very real possibility, but since both lacing and riveting methods work without speculating on additional missing details, I think it's safer to take that route
-Martin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Feb, 2024 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In ancient sculptures, dots like that can often mark where bronze or brass appliques (eg. letters on a sign or weapons on a relief of soldiers) have been pried away by scrap hunters.
Bishop and Coulston's Roman Military Equipment (second edition) has a handy section on how no later than Trajan's Column, Roman sculptures of armour are unlike the armour which archaeologists find, and how artists in Rome seem to copy and adapt earlier sculptures rather than composing purely from life.
weekly writing ~ material culture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic