Qin armor has Assyrian ancestry? There is a traditional Chinese zha jiaDaddy
Recently, a B station up owner held a foreign **, claiming that the fish scale armor of the Qin and Han dynasties originated from the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and used this to argue that Xinjiang was the medium of transmission of this armor technology.
However, this view has been questioned. The up master shot back with the attitude of "this is an academic **, you go write an article and take a look". So, what exactly is the truth?
Original text: Recently, a B station up master held a foreign ** and talked about the so-called fish scale armor from the Neo-Assyrian Empire. And with a foreigner's **, he argued that the fish scale armor of the Qin and Han dynasties came from the West, and then used Xinjiang as a medium to gradually spread to China to form the fish scale armor system of the later Qin and Han dynasties, that is to say, the terracotta armor of Qin Shi Huang and the iron armor of the Han Dynasty are all descendants of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.
And if someone questions him, he said, this is an academic **, there is a kind of you going to write an article or something like that. So, what is the historical truth?
Regarding the relationship between the cavalry armor of the Qin Dynasty and the armor of Yang Hai, foreign scholars have put forward a view that the two are very similar, and it can be speculated that Yang Hai's leather armor may be the predecessor of the apron-like armor worn by the terracotta warriors.
This is a thought-provoking view. However, after careful observation, a scholar in China found that it was very similar to the fish scale armor of the Qin and Han dynasties. So, why the similar? It turns out that this leather armor is made of two different shapes and sizes of high-quality cooked cowhide, and can be divided into left shoulder, right shoulder, chest, abdomen, left rib, right rib, back, and vertical edge.
Is resemblance the same? Does a high degree of similarity mean that the two are the same? Does resemblance mean that the two are connected? So, although these two pots of plants are succulents and have extremely similar structural characteristics, can they be considered the same plant?
Unfortunately, they are not the same kind of plants, but the genus Euphorbia and the genus Planet, which are closely related and have evolved similar appearances. Animals, and even plants, can do it, so why don't experts think about it?
So, are there any similar examples of artifacts invented in human evolution? Indeed, for example, the Neolithic bone stem stone blade broadsword and the Aztec obsidian knife in China are all inlaid with sharper stone flakes and obsidian flakes in materials such as bone and wood.
Excuse me, according to experts, can these two judge who learns from whom just by virtue of their similarity?
This up master's ** also seems to be concerned about this problem and often uses"Possibly"with"Imagine"Come and make excuses for yourself.
The biggest problem in * is that the concepts of similarity and the same are confused first, and secondly, things that have almost zero probability are considered possible. So, are the scale armor of the West really similar to the fish scale iron armor of the Qin and Han dynasties?
Was there a similar armor in China at the same time? Let's take a moment. Most fish scale armor in the West is made by stacking the nail pieces on top of each other and attaching them to leather or cloth, and then sewing the lower row of nail pieces under the upper row of armor pieces to form a two-layer stacked structure.
Many of the later Roman bronze scale armor was also of the same shape, and the steel armor was stably formed by attaching pieces of steel to leather or cloth with ropes, and the leather goods served as the last protective barrier.
What kind of length, style, and expression do you want your new copy to be?
The second type is suitable for the nail piece that connects the left and right shoulders, and is the same as the first type, which consists of 3 rows. On the left, for example, the first and third rows are connected in a similar way to the first row, while the second row is grouped with mid-waist holes, and the nail pieces are arranged in the same way as the first row.
After arranging into 3 rows, the 3rd row is turned upside down, the 2nd row is pressed on top of the first row, and the top of it is wrapped with silk fabric to form a narrow edge, so that the armor pieces are stacked in the order from front to back, regardless of the left and right shoulders.
The combination of the left and right parts is completely symmetrical.
The biggest difference between the Qin and Han Dynasty fish scale armor and the Western scale armor is that the Chinese fish scale armor is made of small armor pieces, and the upper and lower rows of armor pieces are connected by silk threads. In contrast, the upper and lower rows of Roman scale armor were not connected by silk threads, but this type of scale armor has a long history in Europe.
However, in the Central Plains of the Han Dynasty, almost no similar fish scale armor was unearthed. So, when we see someone mistaking the Chinese-style armor for the Western scale armor, we should dismiss it as ignorance and ignore their rhetoric.
Both the Roman bronze scale armor and the modernly restored Byzantine iron fish scale armor are both very strong, but they both have the problem of finding that their stabbing resistance is not ideal when picking spurs from the bottom up.
The upper and lower rows of armor pieces overlap by silk threads, and although it does not completely prevent the thorns from the bottom to the top, there are still significant differences compared with the Western scale armor.
The spear-stabbing Greek hoplites and Assyrian cavalry are reminiscent of a phenomenon in archaeology: many scholars tend to underestimate the complexity and fluidity of ancient societies when studying the origins and cultures of the instrument.
This method works well in the study of the culture of the age of dinosaurs and antiquity, but it is somewhat weak in the well-documented classical period. This is because the excavation of cultural relics is accidental and random, and cultural history cannot be inferred entirely by relying on the evolution of the instrument.
For example, on the question of whether Erlitou was the Xia Dynasty, although it can be known through cultural relics that Erlitou was a wide-area royal state, due to the lack of "ID card-style" written evidence, it cannot be asserted that it is the Xia Dynasty.
Another example is that the number of crossbow machines in the Song Dynasty is very small, which may affect our understanding of the history of crossbowmen in the Song Dynasty. Also, some people believe that Chinese fish scale armor came from the West, but they do not know that its earliest image came from the Chu state in the south, not the Qin state in the north.
In the pre-Qin period, copper plate armor was also unearthed in China, but because there was no overlapping relationship, it was generally regarded as a reinforced part of leather armor.
In the later hot-forged copper armor of the Tsuang Kingdom, we can see a more mature superposition relationship, and the superposition relationship of this armor piece is also an important indicator of its maturity.
In addition, according to historical records, the kingdom of Tsu fell in 640 B.C., and the armor of the Yanghai cemetery was dated between the 7th and 4th centuries B.C. This time difference is like the relationship between Lao Tzu and his son, although there is a significant age difference, but both are important stages in the development of armor.
The logical chain of these two articles is completely wrong, because similarity does not equate to having a direct relationship. In addition, the hot-forged bronze armor of the late Shang and early Zhou dynasties unearthed from the Shigushan tomb is also believed to be the product of cultural exchanges between the East and the West, and is believed to be the result of combining the hot-forged bronze armor of Europe and the leather armor of the Central Plains.
However, while scholars have the right to express their opinions, they should not easily equate similarity with paternity, let alone "01% probability" mistaken for "maybe" or "maybe".
Wu Jing once said: "What you say is right, but there may be something wrong with your understanding." ”
This is an article created by the Cold Weapons Research Institute, written by Hara Kuo and Skeleton. Without authorization, any ** shall not be copied or **, otherwise it will be held accountable according to law.
Part** from the Internet, if you have copyright questions, please contact us.