Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

B.I · 11th September 2005, 05:19 PM

i completely agree with jens. it is good to state the information already known and referenced, but it is a shame that discussions tend to end there. there is much to be learnt and many questions that have never asked. there is no easy answer, nor photographic proof. there is little mention, if any, in early (pre17thC) accounts, although this avenue is not yet closed. so, iconography must play an important part, no matter how loose or speculative. we have all read what little is known, and so now is the time to 'speculate' further.
jens mentioned a potential image in an 11thC sculpture and i showed a potential candidate in a 6thC sculpture. neither are proof of any kind, but surely both warrant a discussion. there is a very strong chance, all published authors were unaware of either pieces, so surely we should attempt to pick up where they left off, and not just repeat what they have said.

11th September 2005, 05:19 PM	#17
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i completely agree with jens. it is good to state the information already known and referenced, but it is a shame that discussions tend to end there. there is much to be learnt and many questions that have never asked. there is no easy answer, nor photographic proof. there is little mention, if any, in early (pre17thC) accounts, although this avenue is not yet closed. so, iconography must play an important part, no matter how loose or speculative. we have all read what little is known, and so now is the time to 'speculate' further. jens mentioned a potential image in an 11thC sculpture and i showed a potential candidate in a 6thC sculpture. neither are proof of any kind, but surely both warrant a discussion. there is a very strong chance, all published authors were unaware of either pieces, so surely we should attempt to pick up where they left off, and not just repeat what they have said.