Introduction
What may be the earliest item of body armour was found in a Siberian grave over sixty thousand years old. The relevant artifacts were described to me by professor White of NYU’s Anthropology department. The grave was of a boy and a man of about sixty years.
Under the long sleeve of his garment, the man wore bracelets of flat sheets of bone arranged one above the other to cover his forearm. Because the bracelets were covered by the garment it did not seem likely that they had a decorative function. However, whether by accident or design, they formed a quite effective forearm defense. Since they were not decorative, their purpose must have been either as just such a defense, or as an amulet – but an amulet of this type would likely be symbolic of such defense. Further, similar items – one-piece spiraling bracelets of bone (opposed to the old man’s group of individual bracelets) are to be found in Siberia from as recent as only one hundred years ago – these with the purpose of defense well known. Though certainly, similar looking items from different cultures may well have widely different purposes.
If the prehistoric bracelets are armour, the date is also interesting because evidence of human on human violence is not to be found until approximately fifty thousand years after the death of this old man. It may thus be that defensive armour is not a reaction to offensive weapons but parallels much of early invention as a way for the frail human to survive the dangers presented by nature. Most likely, the bracers were a way to fend off predators – as, to this day, we naturally throw our forearms up in the way of an oncoming danger.
The Manica
Though there were several types of arm defenses used by the ancient Greeks and Etruscans, these were not really relevant to the development of either Central Asian or more broadly World armour and will not be addressed.
Instead, it may well be that the aforementioned Prehistoric arm defense had a direct relation to the first arm defense to appear in the development of Central Asian armour – the same to be used when Rome’s legionaries found a need to protect their arms.
Brought in by the Scythians and Sarmatians, judging from art representations, this arm defense consisted of hard bands, overlapping, and running across the arm (similarly to the way an Armour of Bands is positioned on the body). In most, if not all, illustrations it is shown as covering the arm from shoulder to wrist and seems to protect the inside and outside of the arm completely. This armour was used by the Parthians and adopted by the Romans during particularly hard campaigns in what is today Hungary. This defense continues in Persian images into the fifth century (it is illustrated here at top left).
"Banded" Defenses
1 - From 8th century Armenian Bass Relief
2 - Late Medieval Turkish "Arm" (Leg?) Defense
|
Unfortunately, despite the seeming popularity of this defense, called a "Manica" by modern historians, no artifacts that I know of survive. There have been a number of reconstructions made, all of them conjectural and many not very consistent with the images available.
Later "Banded" defenses
It is my own belief, however, that these "Manica" can possibly be understood through later defenses – which, in my opinion are directly related.
One such defense is shown on an 8th century statue from Armenia (a drawing is shown at the right as #1). The forearm is covered by bands and at the two sides there is what appears to be a strip (presumably a leather band) uniting them (the rivets are visible on the statue). However, because of the placement of the arms, it is impossible to determine how the elbow is constructed (presumably, the strip curving around the elbow is not entirely accurate – as this would put incorrect stresses on the leather, unless the plate at the elbow is very strongly dished and the leather is curving in the third dimension rather than on the flat). Throughout the early post migration period (roughly 8th - 11th cent.) and sometimes into the 14th century, images are to be found similar to this one (but most have a forearm defense that does not reach the elbow). Further, Indian miniatures of the 15th and 16th century show a defense that looks like a Dustana (see below) but is constructed of bands – illustrations which may well be representing a "Manica" type defense.
A photograph of my reconstruction of one of these "banded" defenses is shown above and this reconstruction is discussed at a separate page here.
In this context, it seems worthwhile to mention an interesting statue of St. Michael from Italy. This 15th century Italian St. Michael wears elbow defenses that are quite normal for Italy, but his forearms are protected by a defense made of bands with strips connecting the bands on the outside – more like the defenses of the 8th century Armenian statue than anything else. What this says about the worldliness of Italian artists, or about the diffusion of armour style is difficult to determine but historians have proposed the Central Asian origin of Western Plate armour and this St. Michael may possibly be a link in the puzzle (though I have never seen an argument for the Central Asian origin of European Arm Defenses).
Indian Rerebrace
Common style - covering the back of the arm and shaped to fit the Bazuband.
Reconstruction based on 15th - 16th century illustrations.
|
At the same time as they show Dustana of bands (roughly the 15th and 16th century), Indian miniatures show "rerebraces" – upper arm defenses, similarly constructed of overlapping bands, being used in conjunction with normal Dustana. While most of these cover only the outside of the upper arm (see illustration at the left), sometimes an illustration is found where this upper arm defense covers both inside and outside and even extends to protect the inside of the elbow (as on the left).
Indian Rerebrace
Uncommon style - covering the full upper arm including the inner elbow.
Reconstruction based on 15th - 16th century illustrations.
|
The possibility thus arises that the original Parthian-Roman defense was the ancestor of these and possibly consisted of a forearm defense like the Armenian, worn together with an upper arm defense like that illustrated in Indian art, with the two overlapping each other to create a complete defense. This is not entirely satisfactory, as many Roman illustrations show armouries with the manica lying by itself – and the implication of the drawing is that the upper and lower arm are of one piece. But it may well be that there was more than one type of manica – the Indian solution representing one type.
All the heretofore mentioned defenses are abundantly represented in illustrations but, as far as I know, no actual artifacts exist. There is, however, one "banded" arm defense that does exist. Unfortunately, this "arm defense" may not even be an arm defense.
What I am speaking of is a group of defenses of Turkish origin made in three sections of narrow bands connected by maile. Some of these are defined as Leg Defenses, others as arm defenses. Unfortunately, those identified as arm defenses do not really show any distinction from the leg defenses and there is, in my opinion, a distinct problem with identifying them as such --rather then as just another group of leg defenses.
One of these supposed arm defenses is illustrated as #2, next to the Armenian arm defense above. On all of these defenses there is a central large section that is presumed to go to the outside of the arm, with one narrow section to each side of it (presumably, one over the back of the arm, the other over the inside). At least the large section, and often all three are large enough to go substantially past the elbow.
When placed on a mannequin with arms straight there is no perceivable problem. Unfortunately, when one begins to visualize (or actually tries) what happens when the arm is bent, it becomes evident that the construction of the wide outer section would not allow the wearer to bend the arm if, as in most (and probably all) cases, the outer section reaches past the elbow (see a more full discussion of leg defenses misdefined as arm defenses on the page on Leg Defenses).
Splint Defenses
1 - Indian, Late Medieval - plates connected with Maile (from surviving artifacts)
2 - Central Asian - overlapping plates riveted to internal leather strapping
(based on 8th century Khazar or Avar Ewer illustration)
reconstruction of full image on Ewer
3 - Indian, Late Medieval - plates connected with Maile (from surviving artifacts)
|
Splint Defenses
Defenses for the lower arms and legs made of bands running parallel to the long bones of the limb (today commonly called "Splint" defenses) appear at some point during the "Migration period" (approximately the fifth century CE).
The early Central Asian Splint defenses were made of overlapping plates fastened in one of two ways. One was to lace each pate to the other with thongs in the manner of lamellar. This seems to have been the manner of attaching the plates of the Valsgarde find and those of a sixth century find in the Crimea.
Another was to rivet the plates to a base (either of several straps or a complete backing). Such a method is clearly illustrated on an eighth century bowl of either Avar of Khazar manufacture found in Rumania. My understanding of the defense is illustrated at #2 at the right – and the whole scene from the bowl at the page on Maile. Two of my own reconstructions where I used the same defenses are: a Khazar warrior and Sohrab and Gordafarid.
In Central Asia these arm defenses either developed into or were replaced by Bazubands (see below) but a version remained in use in India until modern times. This Indian version has the bands without overlap, attached to each other with sections of maile (two of these Indian lower arm defenses made of splints attached by maile are illustrated here as #1 and #3).
These defenses were also carried by the Migration Era Silk Road Nomads into Europe in the West (a set was found at Birka in Scandinavia), where modified versions continued in use into the 15th century, and were the basis of most, if not all, styles of Japanese lower limb defenses.
Plate Defenses
1 - Bazuband / Dustana with pointed elbow, of two plates, hinged.
2 - Bazuband / Dustana with round elbow, of two plates, hinged.
3 - Zarukav - Russian forearm defense without elbow protection.
|
Bazubands - Dustana
The Persian term "Bazuband" (Indian "Dustana", Russian "Naruch") refers to an arm defense where the defining characteristic is a long plate on the outside of the arm, covering from the wrist, up to and including the elbow.
Generally there are one or two (and very infrequently three) shorter plates on the inside, sometimes there is only the outside plate. Based on illustrations, it is probable that the single inside plate (as shown in the illustration at the left, #1 and #2) is an earlier type than the version with several internal plates (like the photograph at the top of the page).
At the elbow, the outer plate is normally well dished and is either pointed or round. The one exception are Dustana from the region of Sind in India, where the outer plate (which still covers the elbow) is normally not dished at all and is of a more fanciful shape. The plates may be connected using pretty much all the flexible attachment mechanisms available, including maile (like in the photograph at the top), leather or cloth hinge straps, a full leather or cloth backing, separate metal hinges, a full length metal hinge...
A photograph of the author in full armour shows Bazubands in use -- this is the same set as in the photograph at the top of this page.
The earliest image I am aware of that shows what is likely such a defense is an eighth century Central Asian shield with the portrait of a mounted warrior wearing one piece lower arm defenses covering the elbow and a Banded armour torso and upper arm defense (the major part of the shield, showing the warrior’s torso, arms, and part of his horse, survives). Some researchers see the Armenian image I mentioned above (at the discussion of later "Manica" type defenses) as another early image of a Bazuband. Both of these images are from the eighth century, making this the latest possible period for the origin of this defense.
This armour continued in use in Central Asia, the Middle East, India, and Eastern Europe until the end of armour (in some mountain passes of Central Asia this was into the twentieth century). While there are differences in style among the surviving defenses, there is no clear difference that may be identified as time based (except possibly the use of smaller internal plates as mentioned above, but this is not certain as the art images may have simply used the single-internal-plate as a convention).
Very imprecisely, it may be possible to point to national differences:
- "Persian" defenses have a deep outer plate with a deeply dished, round elbow (like the photo at the top or illustration #1)
- "Indian" defenses have a deep outer plate with a deeply dished pointed elbow (illustration #2)
- "Turkish" defenses have a shallow outer plate with a dished round elbow (similar to illustration #1)
- "Russian" defenses have a shallow outer plate with a dished elbow which can vary between round, pointed, or a slightly more elaborate "onion shaped" point
However, there are sufficient exceptions to question this classification system (deep Turkish or Russian defenses, pointed Persian or Turkish defenses, rounded Indian defenses...).
A variation on the standard one-piece defense are the 15th and 16th century illustrations from India already mentioned briefly at the discussion of later "Manica" above. These show lower arm defenses shaped exactly like the one-piece Dustana (often shown in the same illustration) but constructed of (or decorated as if constructed of) narrow bands. It may be that these are flexible defenses, as discussed above, but it may be that the bands are attached rigidly, simply as a mode of decoration. Unfortunately, I know of no actual finds that may have formed the basis for these illustrations.
Other Arm Defenses
(MORE INFORMATION TO FOLLOW)
A photograph of a full armour including Bazubands.
