Evolution of the Scale Armour in the Ancient Near East, Aegean

and Egypt :

An Overview from the Origins to the Pre-Sargonids

Abstract

To what it appears at first, the scale armour used in the

ancient Near East, Egypt and Aegean has not been surveyed as a

hole yet, except for some isolated articles which provided the

basis for the coming others.

This paper presents a broad overview of the apparition and

evolution of the scale armour in the ancient Near East, Egypt

and Aegean. The main objective of this contribution lies in the

proposition of a general geographic and time frame for the

research, confronting textual, visual and material evidences

when they are available. Definitions will be set, but then they

will be used as such to illustrate the different types of

armour for the goal of this paper. The author means absolutely

no links of inheritance, copy, technological steal or the like

between the different civilizations discussed in this paper,

except otherwise stated in the text.

A proposal for some essential reasons that might have lead

to the choice of the scale armour as a kind of “standard”

protection for the Bronze and Early Iron Age in the

Mediterranean rather than other systems, will come to finish

this first part of a series devoted to the scale armour.

Before proceeding further, some might say that the

present author is wrong in designating ancient near eastern,

aegean and egyptian realities by “European” mediaeval names.

Some might be right…but, then, the present author awaits their

full study of the armour lexicography in the ancient Near East,

Aegean and Egypt during the IIIrd, IInd and Ist millennia B.C.,

with special references to visual and material evidences, to be

published.

Acknowledgements

Professor R. Lebrun is to mentioned hereby for being, in a

way, at the origin of this paper.

Professor D. Owen has to be thanked as well, for the

information he shared with the present author at the 218th

AMAOS of Albuquerque, in 2009.

Professor M. Maidman will find here the warm thanks of the

present author, for the data he shared with hi mat the 218th

AMAOS of Albuquerque, in 2009.

Professor G. Bunnens also deserves the present author’s

gratitude, for the excavations at Tell Ahmar in 2009.

Professor K. Aslihan Yener, from the Oriental Institute of

Chicago, is to be mentioned among the people to whom the

present author is grateful.

Professor T. Dezö will find here the warm thanks of the

author for their meeting at the 52nd RAI in Münster, in 2006.

M. A. Salimbetti has also to be congratulated for his

wonderful website on the Greek Bronze Age Military Equipment,

which should be published, and enhanced with bibliographical

references as well.

Introduction

When it comes to wear any kind of armour, man usually

employs a cloth to be worn under, as to avoid the scratches and

haematoms induced the by slashes and thrusts received in

combat. For the roman period, this was simply a leather jacket,

the subarmalis, while the mediaeval men might have employed the

gambeson, either padded with wool or horsehair. Nowadays,

armour are padded underneath with Goretex, cotton or nylon, to

prevent too huge a wear, and the burns of the sweat macerating

in cloths worn for long very close to the body and subject to

heavy, numerous and prolonged drifts.

For peculiar areas of the body, the craftsmen employed

peculiar forms of scales, such as squared or rounded, around

the shoulder for example, to maximize protection in the weak

points, such as the throat and armpit1. Other areas of the

underlayer of the armour must have been reinforced with leather

stripes, against too quick a wear and tear.

I. Definitions

Some definitions can be useful to make the differences

between the items depicted, mentioned or found in the ancient

near eastern sources, the names that the later armour were

given and the possible similarities between them.

In any case, each of the following types of armour could

be the protection depicted and mentioned in the ancient near

eastern and egyptian sources, this is why a full review of them

might help to find the kind which is represented.

1. Muscarella O., 1988, p. 54.

A) Mail armour

Mail armour is composed of hundreds of small rings,

interlocking together with different patterns, in order to form

a mesh designed to protect the body of the slashing blows

(Figure 1 - 2)2. Too many times is this term mistakenly

employed to designate scale armour when the topic of armour

represented in the ancient Near East comes about.

B) Scale armour

Scale armour is composed of many small scales, either in

leather, metal or horn (as Pausanias mentioned it for the

Sarmatians)3, attached to a hard backing, like leather or

strong cloth (Figure 3 - 4)4. Many variations exist in the

shape, size, pattern or lacing, length and types of such an

armour, but in the ancient Near East, peculiar types seem to

have been preferred.

C) Ring armour

2. Demmin A., 2008, p. 314, n° 6.3. Pausanias, Description of Greece 1.21.5-64. Demmin A., 2008, p. 314, n° 5 ; Bernage G. (ed.), 2003, p. 22, fig. 1; Thordemann B., 1939, p. 278.

Ring armour is composed of several rings, or small plates,

circular or not, metallic of made out hardened leather, usually

sleeveless (Figure 5 - 6)5. As the reader can guess it already,

this can hardly be the kind of armour depicted on a lot of

ancient near eastern and egyptian evidences, although it could

be an issue to the type of armour worn during the Early

Dynastic period and by some charioteers during the Late Bronze

Age6.

D) Coat of plates

This is a basic thorax armour, made with large metallic

plates covered by a cloth layer and riveted onto a leather or a

cloth backing, usually sleeveless (Figure 7 - 8)7. Thus, in no

way can one identify this kind of armour with the element

mainly depicted or told about in the Egyptian or Near Eastern

evidences relating to body defence.

E) Jack of plates

This is a thorax armour designed with small metal plates

sewn onto a hard backing, without overlapping between one5. Stone G., 1961, p. 22.6. Bernage G. (ed.), 2003, p. 24, fig. 4 ; p. 83, fig. 3. 7. Williams A., 2003, p. 54 ; Demmin, 2008, p. 320, n° 25; Thordemann B., 1939, p. 212; 351, pl. 32 ; 38 ; 126.

anther, and covered with cloth, usually sleeveless (Figure 9 -

10)8. As these metal plates were apparently covered with cloth

or leather, this would hardly be the kind of armour depicted in

the ancient near eastern, egyptian nor aegean evidences, but it

could be a clue to the kind of armour worn by the Peleset

depicted at Medinet Abu.

F) Brigandine

This is a thorax armour, designed with small metal plates

riveted on a hard backing and covered with cloth, usually

sleeveless (Figure 11 - 12)9. This is not what appears on the

ancient near eastern nor egyptian evidences, but might well be

a clue to the Early Dynastic and some Aegean armours depicted

with small dots10.

G) Lamellar armour

Lamellar amour is designed with small scales, laced

together in horizontal and vertical rows, with any peculiar

array, being an evolution of the scale armour in so that it

8. Williams A., 2003, p. 54 ; Bernage G. (ed.), 2003, p. 23, fig. 2; Thordemann B., 1939, p. 223, pl. 93 ; 125-126.9. Williams A., 2003, p. 54 ; Demmin A., 2008, p. 318, n° 19, fig. 19 ; Broquin J., 2001, p. 31.10. Bernage G. (ed.), 2003, p. 81, fig. 7.

does not need a backing to support the scales (Figure 13 -

14)11. This kind of armour might be a clue to the

identification of the main types of armours depicted and

mentioned in the ancient near eastern, egyptian and aegean

evidences. Anyways, it is not the case, for a lot of the

original pieces and textual evidences present traces or

fragments of the backing, either made in leather or in cloth12.

H) Splint/Laminated armour

Splint armour covers limbs and is designed with

longitudinal, narrow and convex strips of metal, the splints,

sewn or riveted onto a hardened backing (Figure 15 - 16)13.

Original pieces were found in scythian tombs, and were

recommended to be used by greek cavalrymen, according to

Xenophon14.

I) Broigne

11. Robinson H., 1967, p. 7 (a mistaken point of view) ; Parani M., 2003,p. 104 ; Thordemann B., 1939, p. 255, fig. 241-244 ; pl. 120 ; 134 ; Viscaino Sanchez J., 2008, p. 207, fig. 6.12. Thordemann B., p. 255, fig. 241, c-d; pl. 134.13. Robinson H., 1967, p. 13, fig. 6.14. Xenophon, Hipparchos, 12, 5; Cyropaedia, 6.4.1; 7.1.2 ; Anabasis 1.8.6.

This kind of armour is very similar to the concept of the

ring armour and of the coat of plates, but it differs in that

the plates are sewn on the backing, thus visible, and that they

are made in horn, metal or leather (Figure 17 - 18)15.

Variations existed, based on the method, design and elements

employed for the armour, as the meshed type, with leather

straps and metal nails, and the studded type, with metal

plates16.

J) Plate Armour

The armour of plates consists of a series of plates, of

metal, horn, leather, reed or even wood, that are assembled and

jointed in order to form a continuous protection for the body

(Figure 19 - 20)17.

K) Latticed Armour

Within the first types of armours, one can think about the

simple leather jack, the harder boiled leather coat and the

even stronger latticed armour. The latticed armour is made of

leather stripes studded and nailed on a specific, usually

15. Broquin J., 2001, p. 31.16. Bernage G. (ed.), 2003, p. 25, fig. 6.17. Yaxley D., 2003, p. 4.

square, pattern, on the surface of a hard leather garment,

boiled or not, in order to provide a maximum protection against

blows, slashes and thrusts weapons (Figure 21 - 22)18.

II. Protecting Beings and Things : Areas to Cover

When designing an armour, the craftsman has essentially to

know which kind of places he will endeavour to protect, where,

and how.

As the choice has been, for some reasons the scholar can

only assess nowadays, set on the scales principle, either

juxtaposed or in overlapping layers, one already has a piece of

the concept, now the elements and areas protected will be

discussed in the following lines.

A) The Man

First of all, the warrior has to be protected in combat,

so to keep the fighting ability to a higher ratio by reducing

casualties, and wounds. Those, in the middle of a fight

deprived of the gunpowder weapon technology, usually strike the

18. Bernage G. (éd.), 2003, p. 23, fig. 3.

parts of the body most directly offered to threats when a

person is moving.

1) Head

The head is among the weakest points in the human anatomy,

as it contains four of the five sensitive organs, i.e. the

eyes, ears, nose and tongue. Moreover, this is also where the

essential arteries of the human body converge, and the seat of

its life engine : the brain. Anybody having ever suffered a

headache or a serious head wound will surely agree : it can

causes great distress, suffering and massive bleeding.

On the top of the head, the helmet can be realised with

scales, studded leather or reinforced plates (Figure 23)19.

For the sake of understanding, any protective garment,

like an armoured hood, made out of scales will be called a coif

in this paper (Figure 23)20. This will sum up the two main

variations one can induce from the evidences : a hood-like

model or just a neck flap model.

2a) Body, Wide version

19. Margueron J.-C., 2004, p. 293, fig. 282, n° 7.20. Bradbury J., 2004, p. 254.

The first of the two essential point a warrior wants to

protect in his body lies, usually, in the torso area, as it

contains the vital organs : lungs and heart, and belly area,

with digestive system. The essential reason belongs to human

anatomy again : only the rib cage covers the upper part of

those organs.

For the sake of understanding, different names will be

used in this paper to designate different length of armour

garment, although these belong to the chain mail technology,

their employment mainly relies on the surface of the human body

covered.

The are the following : gorget, for the element protecting

the throat ; hauberk, if it is knee-length; haubergeon / hauberjon,

if it is mid-thigh length; brynie if it is waist-length (Figure

24)21.

Another kind of armoured garment can find its place here,

as the reader will understand it in the chapter related to the

Early Dynastic period, is the bishop mantle or clavain, a kind of

21. Demmin A., 2008, p. 241 ; Nicolle D., 1994, p. 58 ; Bradbury J., 2004, p. 256 ; Réau L., 1930, p. 70 ; Hooper N., 1996, p. 158 ; Mantello F., 1996, p. 448.

huge collar, protecting the neck, throat, shoulders and upper

arms of the wearer (Figure 25)22.

2b) Body, Slim version

There was, as usual, another second solution for the

essential area to protect in a combat, much more cheap. This

would provide basic armour to places where no bone can hamper a

wound on the arteries, the breathing system, or the sides of

the lower digestive system (Figure 26). More than that, one can

hardly move with an injured hip, and keeping in motion is often

the main point in a combat situation, so as to give or to avoid

the hits.

This is where the ancient near eastern texts come to the

help of the researcher, providing the name of such an armour

that is quite scare to find in the inventories : the tutittu

baldric23. This is the garment depicted on the Early Dynastic

shell ornaments and Akkadian steles, such as the Tello

Fragments, as well24.

3) Arms (Shield)22. Demmin A., 2008, p. 316, n° 14 ; Bernage G. (ed.), 2003, p. 96-98, fig. 1-2 ; von Seggern B., 2003, p. 311, fig. 14.23. Kendall T., 1981, p. 202, note 9.24. Amiet P., 1976, p. 25; p. 90, fig. 25 a.

The crucial surfaces which are firstly, and mostly,

offered to the enemy attacks are the limbs ; mainly the upper

ones if the combat situation includes close- or ranged weapons,

for their proximity with the head and torso. This means that a

warrior involved in fighting, with either one or two hands,

needs to have them protected in a way or in another.

The basic solution was found in times who let no visible

traces nowadays, but the Stele of the Vultures depicts the

first shields we know about in the ancient Near East. As a

matter of a fact, these have been reinforced with circular

studs, maybe made of metal or leather, as a way to counter the

enemy missiles or projectiles when approaching (Figure 26).

With the need to handle the long poles of their weapons with

both hands, one can guess these shields have been suspended or

strapped in some way to the chests of the warriors, thus

providing an extra-arm to protect and deflect the threats.

This basic solution also developed in another direction,

during later periods and in some specific contexts. To the

contrary of what is usually though, the shield just not

represents a mere, passive protection, but could also be used

as an active weapon25. Effectively, the shield has some power

25. Brunaux J.-R., 1988, p. 17, fig. 10.

as a thrusting and blowing weapon when correctly wielded. This

type of fighting techniques also appears on the neo-assyrian

bronze bands and reliefs, but it should not impede the similar

employment during previous periods, at least when the shield

was small enough to be handled with a single hand26.

4) Lower Limbs

Some eastern cultures seem to have employed a kind of

protective garment designed to cover the thighs : the cuisses

(Figure 26)27.

B) The Chariot

Albeit the chariot cab can constitute a protection by

itself, spare armour on the most targeted areas of the vehicle

can be useful. Reinforcing the front, and also maybe the

flanks, of the chariot can hamper the enemy missiles,

projectiles or blows directed toward the articulated or

supporting parts, and thus protect the crew in the meantime

(Figure 27).

26. Wallis-Budge E., 1914, pl. XV, b.27. Demmin A., 2008, p. 320, n° 26.

C) The Animal

When fighting on vehicles draught by animals, it seems

essential to protect the source of motion from the enemy

threats, like missiles, projectiles or blows28. Thus, by

providing an armoured garment to the teams, the caparison, the

charioteer can reinforce his possible resistance to wear and

tear, so as to conserve his ability to move, thus being

operational, quite longer (Figure 27).

D) The Siege-engines

Some neo-assyrian reliefs might let think about some kind

of scale armour for the siege-engines, mainly during the reigns

of Assurnasirpal II, Tiglath-Pileser III or Sargon II (Figure

28)29. Scale armour can offer good reasons, being easy to

realise and repair, to set and to take off a siege-engine

structure, when it was designed to and that the warriors had

experience or training in doing so. Anyways, this might have

been an attempt without consequence, or an artistic convention,

or rely in another field of possible reasons, like symbolism,

or not.

28. Speiser E., 1950, p. 48 ; White Muscarella O., 1988, p. 69.29. Please refer to these respective paragraphs in the chapter about the evolution of the scale armour.

III. Evolution of the Scale Armour

1) Early Bronze Age, XXVIth - XXIIth century B.C.

The basic designs and protective components of the

essential scale armour appeared during the Early Dynastic

Period, if one has to believe the visual data actually at

hands.

A) The Man

Different models were realised for people, mostly

warriors, and were apparently designed according to the areas

to cover and, surely thus, also to other factors. As it is well

known : the best the armour, the highest the cost.

1) Head

To protect the head of peculiar warriors, or person when

just the depictions of the heads are available, the craftsmen

designed a kind of small hood, a coif, covering the head, the

face and the shoulders of warriors with a kind of padded

leather cap (Figure 29)30. On some, it seems that some metallic

(?), or leather, circular plates were sewn. In any case, this

30. Parrot A., 1967, p. 213, n° 2500.

kind of hat might have proven quite efficient against direct

blows in a period where the mace was a common weapon. More than

that, it also allows protection to the most vulnerable body

parts to the threats coming from above : the head, neck and

shoulder against arrows and slingshots.

Some might argue that this can be the depiction of a kind

of ceremonial attire, for the Mari inlays are usually not

assembled, which would provide the context, but lots of them

are still awaiting to be published31.

2a) Body, Wide version

The War Panel of the Standard of Ur provides the

researcher with depictions of a huge cape, maybe of leather,

covered with a series of circular dots, maybe implying some

kind of metallic (?), or leather, circular plates designed to

reinforce its resiliency (Figure 30)32. The Infantry pikemen,

using their long shaft weapon with both hands, had no room for

a shield, and thus were provided such a kind of protective

garment. The huge studded bishop mantle made out of hard

leather and completed with hemispheric, or flat, metal (bronze31. As are all the scholars interested in such a matter, the present author also would like the person in charge to hurry up or to delegate sucha huge, and important, work.32. Pritchard J., 1954, p. 97, fig. 303.

or copper) or even leather circular plates covering the heavy

infantry on the Ur Standard can be a clue to propose this

period for the apparition of the proto- scale armour. Once

again, some might say this could be more a kind of ceremonial

ritual, but this seems not to be the case as the context for

this is clearly war and combat. Otherwise, the whole

iconography of the Ur Standard and of the neo-assyrian visual

data would have to be revised, which could be an interesting

thing, but which does not appears that convincing.

According to some authors, the Stele of Narâm Sîn would

depict samples of scale armour during the Akkadian period,

around 2100 B.C., but a closer look at the Akkadian visual

evidences just show no traces of such thing33.

2b) Body, Slim version

On the Mari inlays, one scene provides the scholar with

the depiction of a siege-redoubt, relying on the association of

a shield-bearer and of an archer (Figure 31)34. As the archer

needs his two hands to shoot the bow on the enemy, he wears a

kind of rectangular scarf, covering his chest and his back from

33. Gabriel R., 2007, p. 78.34. Margueron J.-C., 2004, p. 290, fig. 278.

one shoulder to the opposite hip. This item seems to be made

out of leather, and also presents the circular dots series all

over its surface.

Once again, once can be tempted to see this as a kind of

ceremonial dress, for the Mari Inlays have other depictions of

people wearing the same garment. The fact is that these same

persons are usually depicted with the contemporary,

iconographic, features of higher status, being either the

beards or peculiar glaberness, or the axe. Thus, knowing the

importance of the Archer motif and function throughout most of

the ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian societies in mind, this

could show that some kinds of peculiar scale armour were

designed and / or reserved for peculiar fighters, or higher

status.

3) Arms (Shield)

Another means to protect the body of warriors is

represented on the Stele of the Vultures, where the Infantry

pikemen advance to combat behind their King in his chariot,

yielding their long pikes with both hands (Figure 32)35. Having

no spare hand to use in the manipulation of their shield, it

35. Pritchard J., 1954, p. 95, fig. 300.

seems those have been suspended around their neck, or shoulder,

so to free both upper limbs for the fight. In the meantime,

this practice provide the soldiers with a protection for the

upper part of their body, and for their arms as well. On the

face of these rectangular shields, one can observe a series of

metallic, undoubtedly, circular dots, lined in two vertical

arrays. Those were surely nailed on the shield to enhance its

resilience.

B) The Chariot (?)

On the broken Stele of Khafadje, it appears that the

frontal part of the chariot cab is covered with a kind of

leather cape, decorated with circular dots (Figure 33)36. Once

again, this might be the display of a high status person’s

parade garment or armour during the funeral procession, or the

reinforcement of the frontal part of this light chariot with a

leather cape, covered with metallic (?) or leather circular

pieces.

C) The Animals

36. Frankfort H., 1969, pl. 33 B.

At this very moment, the present author has not found any

sources mentioning any kind of scale or similar armour designed

for the ride or draught animal teams in the sources of that

time (Figure 34). Some kind of breast protective garment appear

on the Standard of Ur and on the Mari Inlays, but one would be

much more tempted to see these as made out of cloth, maybe

leather, but they show not traces or depictions of added

reinforcements, either circular or not37.

D) The Siege-engines

Until now, very few descriptions and depictions of siege-

engines coming back from the IIIrd Millenium B.C. are known by

the scholars (Figure 35-36)38. Some sources point out the

existence of such a kind of technology at that time, and one

can guess such engines needed to be protected, but it would

rather seem that leather was then used for that function, as

metal was still quite expensive.

2) Middle Bronze Age, XVIth – XVth century B.C.

37. Margueron J.-C., 2004, p. 293, fig. 282, 14-15.38. Scurlock J. A., 1989, p. 129-131; Kupper J.-R., 1997, p. 121-133.

During the IInd Millenium B.C., the technological advance

represented by the invention and development of the light war

chariot will lead to an evolution of the personal armour. By

the way, as the main warrior of a chariot usually shoots the

bow, for which the soldier needs his both hands, his body must

be correctly protected against the enemy missiles and

projectiles39. In the meantime, the armour also needs to be

quite mobile and stable, resilient and flexible. Thus, a

snake’s scales are a good compromise to provide a solution for

such an armour. According to some author, it seemed logical

that the animal whose body defence had been copied gives his

name to the armour issued by the research endeavouring to adapt

it to the human body40.

A) The Man

In the ancient Near East, scale armours are attested since

the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age41. Linked to the

functions of soldiers when they needed their both hands, the

scale armours were a good solution to the absence of a shield.

Although some shortcoming are to be noticed, such as the

39. De Vaux R., 1967, p. 428.40. Speiser E., 1950, p. 48.41. Drews R., 1995, p. 110.

weakness in the armpit for the arrows shot during a flight,

scales can cover the whole body and allow a certain mobility,

despite the huge weight it means for the wearer.

1) Head

According to the texts found at Nuzi, around the XVth

century B.C., peculiar helmets made out of leather and covered

with scales, varying in size, were designed to give maximum

protection for minimal weight : the gurpisu42. As the point of

this paper is to provide an overview of the development of the

scale armour in the ancient Near East, Egypt and Aegean, the

deeper study of this topic will not be undertaken here. Such a

helmet can be observed on the depiction of a marya represented

on the chariot of Thutmosis IV, among a lot of other

contemporary egyptian visual evidences (Figure 37)43. This coif

protected the head and neck of the warriors, and could be

enhanced with a leather, tubular collar, a kind of gorget, as it

is depicted on the painting in the Tomb of Kenamun, TT93 at

Sheik Abd el-Qurnah (Figure 38)44.

42. Ventzke W., 1983, p. 97, fig. 46 ; Drews R., 1995, p. 111.43. Kendall T., 1981, p. 210-232.44. Robinson H., 1967, p. 2, fig. 1.

Among the eastern civilizations, the Myceneans and the

Minoans were also great employers of scale helmets, having left

various and numerous depictions, mentions and original

materials for the present-day scholars45. Homer describes such

boar tusks slivers scales sewn on a leather backing that could

be could be used as helmets46. This also appears on some

frescoes discovered at Akrotiri from around 1600 B.C. and the

original helmet found in Kolonna Aegina from the MH II, around

1800 B.C. (Figure 39).

2a) Body, Wide version

1) Long

Huge amounts of copper scales were discovered at Nuzi, a

city were the textual archives pay a special attention to the

armour corslets (Figure 40)47. The hurrian term that designates

a single scale, often noticed under its plural form kùr-zi-me-te

MEŠ, is kùr-zi-me-tù at Nuzi and gur-pi-ši at Boghasköy, where

genuine metal scales were found as well in the temple district

45. Xenaki-Sakellariou A., 1953, p. 46-58.46. Homer, The Iliad, Book 10, 260-5.47. Starr R., 1939, pl.126 A-L ; Starr R., 1939, p. 475 ff. For a very deep, and wonderful, analysis of the scale armours according to the Nuzi archives, see Kendall T., 1981, p. 210-232.

(Figure 41)48. Etymology reveals that this word comes from the

Classic Akkadian kursindu, « wild snake »49.

In the contemporary texts of Amarana, this akkadian term

is KUŠ sa-ri-am50, which means, added to siparru, that the armour

was realised on a leather or on a cloth backing51.

At Nuzi, the charioteer’s scale armour was named the

sariam, made of the leather from a goatskin (usually), with

small sleeves and falling either down the knee, as a hauberk,

or down to midcalf, which could be called a great hauberk52.

A very interesting fact is that the literary evidence from

Nuzi at this period provide the names of the pieces of scale-

armour, according to their employment. The scale is a kursindu,

while the large ones are the GALMEŠ and the small ones are the

TUR.TURMEŠ; the body part of the armour is the ramānu / IM; and

that of the sleeves, the ahu53. The only slight problem for the

akkadian terms designating armour pieces is that the gurpisu is

the helmet, according to T. Kendall, W. Ventzke and R. Drews

48. Speiser E., 1950, p. 48-49 ; Civil M., 1971, p. 567, 1 ; 568, 2; NeveP., 1999, pl. 25, b; pl. 32, a-c.49. Speiser E., 1950, p. 48-49 ; Civil M., 1971, p. 567, 1 ; 568, 2.50. Speiser E., 1950, p. 47.51. Speiser E., 1950, p. 48.52. Drews R., 1995, p. 111. 53. Zaccagnini C., 1979, p. 5, note 13.

and the gorget, according to C. Zaccagnini54. As the reader

will read it in the next chapter of this paper, this is not

that an issue, for some helmets could be fitted with scale-

gorget and neck-armour, thus explaining maybe their common

name. This will more clearly appear on visual and textual

evidences from the time of Assurnasirpal II.

Anyhow, other interesting issues can be found as well in

the Nuzi archives, such as the differences between the scale-

armour nuzite- or hanigalbat-styles, the previous seemingly

having long sleeves and large gorget, while the latter had

shorter ones55.

The scale armour appears under the hurrian word ša/za-ri-(a-)

am, or šar-ya-an-ni in the texts of Boghasköy56. It is the opinion

of the present author that this word has been chosen to

designate the scale armour as its semantic root is linked with

the idea of “lining”, “making horizontal stripes”57. Those

armours were realised with scales designed in two sizes “big”

and “small”, often gathered by lots on a leather backing to

54. Kendall T., 1981, p. 221; Ventzke W., 1983, p. 97, fig. 46 ; Drews R., 1995, p. 111 ; Zaccagnini C., 1979, p. 5, note 13.55. Zaccagnini C., 1979, p. 6.56. Speiser E., 1950, p. 48-49 ; Civil M., 1971, p. 567, 1 ; 568, 2.57. Güterbock H. (ed.), 2005, p. 259, šāriya – B 2.

cover the body of a man or of an animal (Figure 40 - 42)58.

Several hundreds of scales were sewn to the backing to protect

the upper part of the body and the skirt, often around 400 or

500 pieces for the chest, 160 for the sleeves and 140 for the

helmet, and more were used for the sleeves59. The weight of the

full dress, as it can be reconstructed from the pieces found at

Nuzi and according to the textual evidences, has been estimated

around 15 to 35 kg, which, of course, does not include weapons

and ammunitions60.

Such a kind of armour might have been introduced by the

Hyksos in Egypt around 1700 B.C., which seems possible but

lacks some evidences to support the assertion61. Another

possible way for the Egyptians to have known about these scale

armours would have been the tribute of Asiatic vassals, such as

the Retenu during the reign of Thutmosis II, or as gifts sent

by eastern neighbours, as the piece sent by Tushratta to

Amenhotep II62. These scale armours were very important, as

58. Speiser E., 1950, p. 48-49 ; Civil M., 1971, p. 567, 1 ; 568, 2 ; Kendall T., 1981, p. 213. 59. Kendall T., 1981, p. 221, note 56.60. Drews R., 1995, p. 111, note 30.61. Gabriel R., 2007, p. 78.62. Kendall T., 1981, p. 222, note 62 ; Sethe K., 1907, III, p. 732.

being mentioned in the annals of Thutmosis III among the booty

he brought back from his campaigns at Qadesh and Megiddo63.

A detail of a scene represented of the chariot of

Thutmosis IV shows such an armour and its weakness in the

armpit as worn by a marya in flight, and shot from behind

(Figure 37)64. The oldest depictions of such a full hauberk

appears in the Tomb of Kenamun, TT93 at Sheik Abd el-Qurnah,

who was Royal Steward of Amenhotep III (1436-1411 B.C.)65. The

armour consists of ribbed bronze (?) scales, laced to a

foundation, with blue bands at the neck, sleeves and bottom

edges (Figure 38)66. Some examples of such scales were

recovered at Thebes, in a palace of Amenhotep III, and, while

the whole set displays the holes to be sewn on the backing, one

has still some original cloth backing stuck to its rear (Figure

43)67. Flinders-Petrie has also found scales from armour dating

back to Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II at Biban el-Moluq68.

Tutankhamun (1333-1323 B.C.) had some pieces of an armour, made

of thick leather scales, maybe tinted in red and yellow,

63. Aldred C., 1970, p. 107. For a deeper study of theses armour in the egyptian litterature, please refer to Kendall T., 1981, p. 222, note 63.64. Yadin Y., 1963, p. 192.65. Bryan B., 2002, p. 247.66. Robinson H., 1967, p. 1-2, fig. 1, a.67. Wise T., 2002, p. 20.68. Flinders-Petrie W., 1917, p. 18.

crafted on a linen backing, without sleeves, and found by H.

Carter in his tomb, KV 62, in the Valley of the Kings69.

Peculiar sample of egyptian and nuzite origins have been

discovered, with very slight differences in shapes and somehow

in size70.

2) Short

In Crete, a tomb of the site of Arkalokori has yielded

five bronze round plates dated around 1500 B.C. and that could

have been used to realise a kind of armour, like the bishop

mantel of the soldiers depicted on the Standard of Ur (Figure

30)71. These plates seem to have bee sewn on a backing, as the

small holes barely visible all around the plates edge could

were employed used for their fixation to a perishable material.

Similar pictorial evidences from the Linear B tablets of

Tiryns might support this idea72.

2b) Body, Slim version

69. Moorey P., 2001, p. 5 ; Vogelsang-Eastwood G., 1999, 109-111.70. Robinson H., 1967, p. 4, fig. 2, a-b.71. According to A. Salimbetti, the Arakalochori plates seem not to have been published. Actually displayed at the Eraklion Museum.72. Vandenabeele F., 1978, p. 33, fig. 18.

Until now, no evidences have revealed a point in favour of

the existence of such a kind of armour corslet at that time.

3) Arms (Shield)

As the scale armour was designed to compensate the absence

of the shield on a chariot, the evidences actually known show

no traces of a point in favour of such a possible protective

item covered with scales in the ancient Near East or Egypt.

In Crete, a tomb of the site of Arkalokori has yielded

five bronze round plates dated around 1500 B.C. and that could

have been used to realise a shield, like those observed on the

Vultures Stele (Figure 32). These plates seem to be sewn on a

backing, as the small holes barely visible all around the

plates edge could were employed used for their fixation to a

perishable material.

B) The Chariot

Until now, no evidences have revealed a point in favour of

the existence of such a kind of armour for a chariot at that

time.

C) The Animals

According to the texts found at Nuzi, during the XVth

century B.C., the horse-teams of chariots were sometimes

protected with scale armours as well (Figure 42)73.

This could thus be somehow similar to a horse scale

armour, dating back to the IIIrd century B.C., and found at

Dura Europos (Figure 44)74.

D) The Siege-engines

There is hardly a depiction or a full description of a

siege-engine from this period, although some essential

components are mentioned in the royal archives of Ebla, Mari,

the letters of Zimri-lim or lines 86-95 of tablet VII A, from

the explicative series HAR.ra = hubullu75. Thus, the possible

covering of such engines with a kind of scale armour is all but

hypothesis.

3) Late Bronze Age, XIVth - XIIIth centuries B.C.

During the Late Bronze Age, the scale armour closely

followed the evolution of the war chariot, and of the other

73. Drews R., 1995, p. 111, note 31.74. Wilcox P., 1986, p. 9 ; Robinson H., 1967, p. 6.75. Scurlock J. A., 1989, p. 129-131 ; Kupper J.-R., 1997, p. 121-133.

military techniques that would be more and more employed with

the advance realised in architecture. Practical experiences

will provide support for upgrades, as the originally flat and

rounded of the scales will become more and more lengthened, and

receive further enhancements, mainly provided by the smiths.

The scale will be more and more curved in the width and in the

length, dished with a central ridge, in order to reinforce its

resiliency and to prevent too wide an overlapping. The size of

the scales will be reduced, in order to save room and metal,

and the lacing system will be enhanced to allow more

flexibility to the motions of the wearer.

These innovations can be observed on some pieces of scale

armour discovered at Kamid el-Los, and brilliantly studied by

W. Ventzke (Figure 45)76.

A) The Man

1) Head

Until now, no evidences have revealed a point in favour or

against the existence of such a kind of armour at that time in

the ancient Near East.

76. Ventzke W., 1983, p. 97, fig. 47 ; 98, fig. 48-49 ; 99, fig. 50 ; 117; 149, fig. 54.

From the 14th century B.C., original boar tusks shaped as

scales to design a helmet to fit the requirement for the

protection of the head of such a kind were found in Chamber

Tomb n° 515 at Mycenae 77. Original boar tusks from such a

helmet were found in the Warrior Tomb of Dendra, from the LH

III B, while the contemporary texts mention the name of such

helmet : a koreto (Figure 46)78.

2a) Body, Wide version

1) Long Version

The reliefs from the temples of Sethi I and Ramses II in

Egypt, depicting their campaigns against the Eastern enemies,

sometimes show a long garment that is worn by the charioteers

(Figure 47)79. The depiction of such a scale armour can be

fully observed, with a lot of details, in the Tomb of Ramses

III (1198-1167 B.C.), KV11 in the Valley of the Kings (Figure

48)80. The armour consists of several bronze scales, each one

with a central ridge, laced together in horizontal and vertical

rows, with a standing collar and short sleeves.

77. National Archaeological Museum in Athens, n° P6568.78. McDonald W., 1992, p. 277; Gabriel R., 2007, p. 79.79. Rossellini I., 1832, vol. III, pl. CII.80. Robinson H., 1967, p. 2, fig. 1, B.

Several means and ways could be employed to fix the scales

to the backing, one of which was brilliantly studied and

proposed by W. Ventzke for a latter type of scale armour found

in Kamid el-Los. In that same great paper, W. Ventzke also

provided some basis for a typology of the scale armour of that

period, some issue that deserved to be mentioned in this paper

(Figure 49)81.

From the XIIIth century B.C., similar specimens of scale

armour, made in bronze and having a rounded extremity, with

holes for the lacing system, were found at Alalakh, Ugarit,

Troy and Cyprus82.

2) Short Version

Such a kind of bronze reinforcements, maybe intended to be

sewn on a backing, were discovered in the warrior grave A of

Kallithea, buried around LH IIIC83. These bronze flat stripes and

small rounded plates, some of those still having the nails

employed to secured them could be a clue to the possible

81. Ventzke W., 1983, p. 95, fig. 45.82. Woolley L., 1955, p. 278, pl. LXXI, n° AT/38/137 a and b ; SchaefferC., 1937, p. 144, fig. 9 ; Schaeffer C., 1951, p. 13, fig. 6; Lagarce E.,1994, p. 110, pl. IV, fig. 3, n° B.72.8 ; B.72.18 ; Karageorghis V., 1973,p. 642 ; Karageorghis V., 1982, p. 723.83. Connolly P., 1999, p. 31, n° 5.

employment of a mix of lamellar armour and brynie corslet

(Figure 50).

A brynie, possibly consisting of a backing with small,

rounded bronze plates sewn over it, has been found in a warrior

tomb from Liatovouni hill, dated around the XIIIth - XIIth

century B.C., in a warrior tomb (Figure 51)84. The mycenean

infantry warriors depicted on the Warrior Vase and Warrior

Stele seem to wear armour as well, but shorter models, as a

kind of brynie, during the transition during Late Helladic III B

and C (Figure 52)85.

2b) Body, Slim version

Until now, no evidences have revealed a point in favour of

the existence of such a kind of armour corslet at that time.

3) Arms (Shield)

As the scale armour was designed to compensate the absence

of the shield on a chariot, the evidences actually known show

no traces of a points in favour of such a possible protective

item made with scales. Moreover, the front part of the shields,

84. Salimbetti A., http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/armour2.htm.85. Drews R., 1995, p. 176, note 8.

mainly yielded by the Hittites on the egyptian visual sources,

usually appears to be completely deprived of visible

reinforcement86. One would think that, during that period,

these scales were primarily intended for the helmet and armour.

4) Lower Limbs

A Hittite Warrior statuette, kept at the Louvre Museum,

presents a kind of thick, armoured or reinforced garment which

seems to protect the rear and the lower parts of the thighs of

the individual (Figure 53). According to some authors, this

might be a specific type of scale armour, intended to protect

the waist of the warrior87.

The present author went to see it, and just noticed

details that tend to depict cloth decorations, with different

sewing techniques and patterns.

B) The Chariot

Until now, no evidences have revealed a point in favour or

against the existence of such a kind of armour corslet at that

time.

86. Bryce T., 2007, p. 19.87. Bryce T., 2007, p. 16.

C) The Animals

Few, if any, evidences allow the scholars to think of a

protective garment designed for the horses during that time in

the ancient Near East. Anyways, more than the hypothesis that

the tradition went on, chances are that they were such horse

armours, as some can be observed on the visual evidences from

other Mediterranean areas, like Cyprus and Egypt.

Some author assume that Egyptian horses belonging to

chariot-teams can be protected with scale armour sometimes, but

it is usually hard to make the difference between scales and

decorative pattern in the cloth or leather on such scene, at

least under the reigns of Tutankhamun down to Ramses II (Figure

47)88.

D) The Siege-engines

There is hardly a depiction or a full description of a

siege-engine from this period. Thus, the possible cover of such

engines with a kind of scale armour is all but hypothesis.

4) Early Iron Age : IX th –VIII th centuries B.C.

88. Drews R., 1995, p. 111, note 31.

At the beginning of the Ist Millenium B.C., the

experimentations with the scale armour will give way to some

peculiar adaptations of the former models, according to the

specific needs of the civilizations concerned. Among these, one

can remind the research for further protection, the need to

cover particular areas of the human body, which was linked to

the development of specific function of soldiers and

engineering at that time, and the need to reduce the weight of

the armour on the soldiers’s shoulders. Thus, a particular

solution was found with the broad belt, reporting a part of the

weight of the armour on the waist of the man. This clearly

appears on the neo-assyrian depictions of such a long scale

armour (Figure 54-56).

Anyways, if the size and shape undergo lots of changes,

the extremity of the scales stays quite rounded, as the

contemporary neo-assyrian reliefs and objects found in

excavations at Nimrud and at Hasanlu show it89. In the akkadian

texts from the Ist Millenium B.C., as the neo-assyrian annals

are a good and essential component of this research, the word

for scale armour is gur-pi-si, under Assurnasirpal II90.

89. Stronach D., 1958, p. 169-181, pl. XXXIV, fig. 1-1, 0 ; White Muscarella O., 1988, p. 54, n° 62-63, fig. 62-63.90. Speiser E., 1950, p. 50.

A) The Man

1) Head

As it can be observed on the bronze bands and reliefs of

Assurnasirpal II and Salmanazar III, the charioteers and siege-

redoubts shield-bearers and / or archers, with the sappers as

well could wear the scale armour coif (Figure 54 - 55)91.

2) Body, Wide version

The reliefs of Assurnasirpal II and the bronze bands of

Salmanazar III display two length of body armour, hauberk and

hauberjeon, although the latter seem to have been preferred by

the charioteers (Figure 55-57)92.

Some might say these are just an artistic convention to

depict neo-assyrian soldiers, which fact might be true, but

then it comes back to the idea of the status of the people

depicted.

1) Long version

91. Barnett R., 1962, pl. CXVIII ; Wallis-Budge E., 1914, pl. XXIV, a ; King L., 1915, pl. XXXIX, Bd. VII. 3.92. Wallis-Budge E., 1914, pl. XVIII, a ; Barnett R., 1962, pl. CXIX ; CXXII ; King L., 1915, pl. X, Bd. II. 4.

During the reign of Assurnasirpal II, it seems that the

scales employed still had a round head directed downstairs

(Figure 58-59)93. During the reign of Salmanazar III, the coat

of scales also seems to be made out of a strong, flexible

material, thus one could assume this is leather. It was

apparently covered with what seems to be rectangular scales,

although the extremities can have been cut off to ease the

artist’s work when realising so many depictions.

The contemporary depictions of charioteers from the neo-

hittite sphere present armour made out of rectangular scales,

as in Sakçagözü (Figure 60)94. By the way, the same remark as

for the scales of Salmanazar III can be used here as well.

2) Short version

During the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III and down to the

end of the period of the Sargonids, some shorter versions of

the body armour can be observed (Figure 61-64)95.

2b) Body, Slim version

93. Wallis-Budge E., 1914, pl. XXIV, a.94. Orthmann W., 1971, pl. 51, Sakçagözü B/1.95. Barnett R., 1962, pl. LXVII ; Albenda P., 1986, pl. 102 ; Barnett R.,1998, pl. 295, n° 383 b ; Barnett R., 1976, pl. 314, n° 388.

On the bronze reliefs of Tiglath-Pileser III and down to

the end of the period of the Sargonids, it seems that the light

archers had a broad strap covered with continuous square,

metallic (?) or leather, scales, to protect their chest96. The

similarities between this scale baldric and the tuttitu of the

Early Dynastic and Sargonic periods are somehow very

interesting (Figure 31; 63; 65).

3) Arms (Shield)

Some of the small rectangular shields wielded by the neo-

assyrian soldiers of Assurnasirpal II might have been realised

with scales covering the leather, or wooden, face of the object

(Figure 66)97. Anyways, for this period, this seems poorly

possible, as it rather appears they might have been realised

out of wickerwork, being lighter and cheaper.

B) The Chariot

Contemporary neo-hittites materials sometimes display the

reinforcement of chariots with circular pieces studded on the

cab, as in Karkemish (Figure 67)98.

96. Barnett R., 1962, pl. XXXVI.97. Wallis-Budge E., 1914, pl. XV, b.98. Orthmann W., 1971, pl. 24, Karkemish C/5-9.

C) The Animals

The close observation of the reliefs realised during the

reign of Assurnasirpal II and the bronze bands decorating the

gates of Imgur Enlil palace under the government of Salmanazar

III show no clear depictions of scale armour on the horses.

Anyways, the scale pattern usually employed closely fits

with these represented on one of the somehow contemporary

Nimrud Ivories from Assyria, kept at the British Museum, which

might be a clue in that direction (Figure 68)99.

The contemporary depictions of charioteers from the neo-

hittite cultural sphere show representations of rectangular

scales providing an armour corslet designed for horses, such as

in Sakçagözü (Figure 59)100.

D) The Siege-engines (?)

On the reliefs of Assurnasirpal II, some siege-engines

seem to be covered with rectangular plates, comprising a lined

decoration on the front, and disposed on the face and side of

the machines to protect them from missiles and incendiary

99. Barnett R., 1957, pl. XVIII, S1.100. Orthmann W., 1971, pl. 51, Sakçagözü B/1.

substances sent by the besieged population (Figure 66)101.

Anyway, one would rather identify these items with the

rectangular shields wielded by the neo-assyrian Infantry

warriors not using a bow, on the same scenes, and others from

the same period102.

During the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III, a siege-engine

was depicted with circular dots covering the outer layer of the

cab. The similarities with the principle of the tuttitu

protection with bronze or leather plates, reinforcing a boiled

leather cover are very interesting (Figure 69).

During the Sargonid era, starting under Senacherib, the

siege-engines will have another type of cover, but this does

not seem to have included scales103.

IV. Apparition of the Scale Armour : Related Elements ?

The element that lead to the design of the scale armour

was the need from protection in combat, without any doubts. In

the same time, other factors also played in favoured of such an

armour. As stated higher in these lines, the scale armour would

be harder to be pierced or slashed, from a certain distance at101. Wallis-Budge E., 1914, pl. XIII, a ; XXIV, a ; King L., 1915, pl. XX,Bd. IV, 2 ; L, Bd. IX, 3.102. Wallis-Budge E., 1914, pl. XV, b.103. Barnett R., 1998, pl. 331, n° 430c.

least, which was surely not the case for other types of

armours, like leather or maybe cloth protective garments.

Practically, and apart for the time and wealth absorbing

aspects of its manufacture, the only shortcoming of the scale

armour is in its weight. As seen in the previous paragraphs,

the huge scale armour, during any period, seemed to have been

reserved for slow moving, even static warriors, mostly. Thus,

it does not mean the problem was solved, as the Infantry

warriors wearing such a garment would have to be quite strong

and tough, but with some training, one can guess some can get

accustomed to wearing such a weight in combat, as the later

legionaries or mediaeval knights could prove it as well.

Some other elements also played in favour for the choice

of a kind of a flexible armour rather than of a rigid armour,

like huger metallic plates in the fashion of the Archaic and

Classical Greek models (Figure 46).

1) Fighting Technique : Two Hands

As previously stated, the scale armour concept might be a

consequence for the need of soldier to use both hands while in

a combat zone in order to achieve, or try to, their respective

goals, be they archers, spearmen, sappers or chariotry shield-

bearers104.

With a flexible, although somehow heavy armour, they could

give stronger blows with their weapons or tools, manipulate the

siege-engines, shoot faster, or be able to hold on to the

chariot’s handle while it was on the move (Figure 30-32; 37,

42; 54; 56-57; 60-62; 64; 66).

2) Military Doctrine : Fight in Formations

As the soldiers use their both hands to fight, whatever

heir task, this undoubtedly means that, somehow, their weak

point is protected by a fellow or a friendly warrior, close on

their side (Figure 30-31; 42; 57; 62; 64; 66). Thus, this would

be a point to induce that the military doctrine relying on the

fight as a group in specific formations, Synaspism (?), and

areas could be another reason for such an improvement in

armour.

a) Block and Distance Infantry Tactics

One of these earlier signs of fight in formations appears

on the Standard of Ur War panel and on the Stele of the

104. De Backer F., 2009, p. 69-115.

Vultures as well, where the pikemen advance to contact in close

formation with pike heads protruding in successive ranks

(Figure 30; 32). As these seemed to be either quite long, i. e.

the Stele of the Vultures, or heavy, i. e. the Standard of Ur,

warrior needed their both hands in order to pierce with enemy

with stronger weight.

b) Long Range Infantry Tactics

Coming to the ranged weapons, one can understand how hard

and uneasy it is for an infantry archer to achieve accurate,

fast, numerous and hitting shoots with the weight of a shield

relying on one arm (Figure 31; 55; 57; 62). The solution was

found by the adjunction of a huge shield to cover the archer,

and of a spearman to wield it and protect the shooter when he

is most vulnerable : when he reloads.

As previously seen, the ridge of the scales forming the

armour could deflect and stop most of the thrusts, blows or

missile, which is hardly the case with a rigid armour, fastly

pierced or broken (Figure 3-4; 43; 45; 48; 59).

3) War-Chariot Tactics

The same reflects here for the charioteers, be they axe-,

mace-, spear-, or bow-wielding soldiers, as it also appears in

the texts of Nuzi105. The chariot, even although very slow

during the first phases of its development, was surely quite

unstable and rocking. So, it enhanced the need for the persons

carried on board to hold on to something, if they were not able

to support their own weight with their foot alone because of

their fighting task. Such leather tongue handles appear on the

paintings of the palace of Til Barisp’s neo-assyrian period

hunt scenes, fixed on the side of the cab of the chariot106. In

the meantime, the extra-weight provided by the scale armour at

different periods could have helped the warrior to stabilise

his balance by lowering his centre of gravity.

4) Horsemanship Warfare

Being a further development of chariot warfare, the horse

is a faster and lighter shooting platform. It is then no

surprise to observe that the first horse-archers would have

been equipped with a scale armour, as it allows the two hands

105. Negri-Scafga P., 1981, p. 53 ; 55.106. Thureau-Dangin Fr., 1936, pl. LIII, XXVII e.

to be freed for the wielding of a shield, and was still related

to archery (Figure 37; 42; 47; 54; 60 – 61; 64; 67).

5) Siegecraft : Destroying while Being Protected against

Destruction

For the sappers, the essential point was to realise the

destruction of the fortifications as they were assigned to,

although it usually meant they would do it under the missiles

and projectiles, within the very close range of the enemy

(Figure 56)107. Thus, as a shield would surely have slowed down,

or hampered their tasks, solutions might have been found in the

scale armour, being resilient and flexible, offering an

acceptable cover to most of the threats they encountered, with

the noticeable exception of fire.

6) Socio-Political Factors : “Parade” Armours

To the contrary of what this subtitle might imply, the

“parade” armour relies much more on the idea of conspicuous

depictions of skills, wealth, status, or a combination of the

three, BUT without reducing the potential of armour.

107. De Backer F., 2007, p. 45 - 64.

The simple silver armour scale that was found at Taynat

might be a good clue for the existence of such parade armours

during the Middle to Late Bronze Age108.

Other ancient texts mentions such parade armour, that the

authors had understood as fighting armour, even were they made

out of gold, but then, they might have been gilded, as those

who were found at Persepolis109. Others could even bear the name

of the king to whom they belang, be it Ramses II or Sheshonq

(Figure 70)110.

Such examples can be found in the history of the Persian

general Masistios, that will be deeper explained later in these

lines. Another example, with the relative historical value of

the armour as a parade garment in this paper, in the story of

David and Goliath, when Saül proposes his armour to the young

shepherd who finds it too huge and unnecessary for him111.

Some might say the scale armours merely represent a

peculiar cloth, being an iconographic convention, employed by

the artist to highlight peculiar person depicted. Although this

can be true for earlier period, and peculiar areas like Egypt,108. Yener K., 1991, p. 555 ; 572.109. Herodotes, History, IX, 22 ; Schmidt E., 1957, p. 100, pl. 77.110. BBC News, 28 March 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4853332.stm; Wilkinson J., 1994, vol. 1, p. 368, ill. 324 a, fig. 1. 111. 1 Sam 17:5-7 ; 1 : Sam 17 : 38-39.

how could we explain then the huge amount of such material

discovered in excavations and fitting with both textual and

visual evidences ?

Anyhow, this is also true, but it does not impede the

aspect of fighting skills, wealth or other upper status

markers.

a) High Fighting Skills

The main point for a commander is to provide the best

warriors at his disposal with the best equipment available,

which is always expensive, and try to avoid high casualties

among their ranks, such as to keep a strong military asset

while involved in a combat situation (Figure 1-22; 30; 61).

Thus, and as it appears in the visual and textual evidences

recorded in this paper, those are the highly efficient

charioteers, as their weaponry surely demanded a high training

or experience (Figure 34; 37; 42; 47; 54; 60; 64; 67-68).

The second type of warrior being provided with the scale

armour are the strong and essential Heavy Infantry units,

wielding either the pike or the spear, and who allows, as a

massive conglomerate of fighters moving like a single one, the

occupation of the field112. This might find its origin in the

fact that the enemy forces had to be kept busy or preoccupied

by numerous troops, so to allows much more freedom to the

Chariotry movements on the battlefield and around the foe. So,

to enhance the resilience of the occupying troops against the

enemy hits, one might have chosen to give them extra-

protection, in the shape of scale armour corslets, or tall

shields reinforced with studded scales (Figure 30-32; 55; 57;

60; 62 – 63; 66).

Then, for populations militarily dealing with open areas,

like flood plains or marshes, the archer is essential when

dealing with enemy units afar. Even in mountainous fields, the

archer has his value as a mean to harass and keep the enemy

busy while trying to flank him. Being able to delay, disable or

destroy the opposite forces from a distance surely finds some

efficiency in a combat situation where other factors than the,

usual, numerical asset can play a decisive role. Then the

protection of highly trained or experimented archers can be a

way to enhance their resilience to enemy missiles and

projectiles, thus lengthening the time they can be employed and

112 A spear is a weapon yielded with either one or two hands, and made with a long shaft ; a pike is a weapon yielded with two hands, mostly, and made with a very long shaft.

their availability as an operational fighting strength (Figure

31; 55; 57; 62; 63).

The Queen of Battles, the Infantry, has always been used

to form the core of any Royal or elite bodyguard, and thus the

members of these were supposed to have the best equipment

possible, as they must protect and die for their sovereign. It

is then no surprise that peculiar footmen are depicted with

different types of armour, if one thinks about the visual

effect intended on other people, enemies and subjects, as well

as regarding to their different fighting abilities (Figure 19;

30 - 32; 55; 57; 60; 62-63; 65).

Finally, sapping the besieged walls surely asked for an

extreme toll of coolness and bravery, if not foolishness, to

the sappers in charge. As their tasks were usually very closely

related to the political and economical aspects of the

besieger’s own reign, as a siege is an extremely risky and

costly situation, one sees no surprise while observing them

clothed in a scale armour, at least under the neo-assyrian

kings (Figure 56; 66).

b) Wealth

Being extremely efficient an armour, and demanding a high

toll of craftsmanship and materials, it is no surprise ether to

think, and observe, that ancient near eastern kings and wealthy

Egyptian people displayed a scale armour on their visual

materials (Figure 38; 48).

The same is also true for the houses of military V.I.P.’s,

as the manufacture and ownership of such a garment could only

mean one thing : the maintenance of such armour, moreover

linked with the chariot and chariot teams, must have been very

costly as well. Thus, this must have been the pride of rich

people, as the metal armour was also and usually part of the

wealth belonging or controlled by the upper layers of the

societies (Figure 1-22; 39-41; 43-46; 49; 58-59). In that idea,

one can understand the description of the armour of the Persian

General Masistios, who wore a coat of “golden scales” under his

crimson tunic, as a token for the Greeks to enhance their

victory on such a rich and noble man113.

c) Status

While rich and skilled people, already two social status

markers, could order, own, use and maintain a scale armour, one

113. Herodotes, History, IX, 22.

can guess the higher status people would do so as well, being

skilled or not. But texts from Nuzi prove that the city’s

magistrates could also rent or borrow scale armours to low

classes citizens that were able to shoot114. This is where the

“parade” aspect of the scale armour can come into handy, but

the evidences hardly mention or depict such a case, surely for

artistic conventions, with political and cultural reasons

associated.

The long description of Goliath’s scale armour in the

Bible is noteworthy as well, illustrating the heavy abyss

between the young shepherd and the Champion of the Philistines,

wearing the best armour of his time.

Conclusion

To the contrary of what some might think, scale armour did

not end with the Middle Ages or Renaissance in the East. In

1900, one travelling far enough towards Asia through the steppe

would have surely met some members of the Koryak people, whose

men wore the same kind of scale armour as the Scythians, two

thousand years before present.

114. Kendall T., 1981, p. 210-232 ; Negri-Scafa P., 1981, p. 54-56.

The interest in the research over the scale armour lies in

a lot of different advantages, but just some of them will be

mentioned here. First of all, this aspect of the material

evidences can provide the digger with a good clue for relative

chronology, be it on the field or during the preparation of the

publication.

The second one relies on the interest on the crosses-study

of the texts, the material and the visuals to enhance the

modern knowledge of these wonders of technology we know so few

about.

Finally, this fills the personal interests of the present

author, with delight.

Bibliography

- ALBENDA P., Le palais de Sargon d’Assyrie, « Synthèse » n° 22, Paris,

1986.

- ALDRED C., « The Foreign Gifts offered to Pharaoh », dans

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 56, 1970, p. 105-16.

- AMIET P., L’art d’Agadé au Musée du Louvre, Paris, 1976.

- ASLIHAN YENER K., « Swords, Armor, and Figurines », dans The

Biblical Archaeologist Vol. 58, No. 2, June 1995, p. 101-107.

- ASLIHAN YENER K., « Stable Lead Isotope Studies of Central

Taurus Ore Sources and Related Artifacts from Eastern

Mediterranean Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Sites », dans

Journal of Archaeological Science 18, 1991, p. 541-577.

- BARNETT R., A Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories, London, 1957.

- BARNETT R. D., FALKNER M., The Sculptures of Aššur–Nasir–Apli II (883–

859 B. C.), Tiglath–Pileser III (745–727 B.C.), Esaraddon (682–669 B.C.) from the

Central and South-West Palaces at Nimrud, London, 1962.

- BARNETT R.D., BLEIBTREU E., et alii, The Sculptures from the South–

West Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh, London, 1998.

- BARNETT R. D., Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at

Nineveh (668–627 B.C.), London, 1976.

- BBC News, 28 March 2006,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4853332.stm.

- BERNAGE G. (ed.), Armes médiévales, Paris, 2003.

- BRADBURY J., The Routledge Companion to Mediaeval Warfare, London,

2004.

- BROQUIN J., Lexique militaire et guide médiéval, Turquant, 2001

(Collection Hermine).

- BRUNAUX J.-L., RAPIN A., Gournay II. Boucliers et lances. Dépôts et

trophées, Paris, 1988 (Revue Archéologique de Picardie).

- BRYAN B., « The 18th Dynasty before the Amarna Period », dans

SHAW I. (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford,

Oxford, 2002, p. 218-270.

- BRYCE T., Hittite Warrior, Oxford, 2007 (Warrior, 120).

- CIVIL M., et alii, The Assyrian Dictionnary of the Oriental Institute of the

University of Chicago, vol. 8, K, Chicago, 1971.

- CONNOLLY P., The Ancient Greece of Odysseus, Oxford, 1999 (The

Ancient World).

- CURTIS J., The Balawat Gates of Ashurnasirpal II, London, 2008.

- DE BACKER F., Notes sur l’équipement de l’armée néo-assyrienne, de Téglath-

Phalazar III à Assurbanipal, basées sur les bas-reliefs découverts à Ninive, Kalhu

et Dûr-Sharrûkin, Mémoire de licences inédit, Louvain-La-Neuve,

U.C.L., 2004.

- DE BACKER F., « Notes sur certains sapeurs néo-assyriens »,

dans Res Antiquae 4, 2007, p. 45 - 64.

- DE BACKER F., « Some Basic Tactics of Neo-Assyrian Warfare

», dans Ugarit Forschungen 39, 2009, p. 69-115.

- DEMMIN A., An Illustrated History of Arms and Armours, Teddington,

2008.

- DE VAUX R., « Les Hurrites de l’Histoire et les Horites de

la Bible », dans Comptes-rendus des séances de l'Académie des

inscriptions et belles-lettres, vol. 111, n° 3, 1967, p. 427 – 436.

- DEZSÖ T., « Panzer », in EBELING, E. (éd.), Reallexikon der

Assyriologie und Vorderasiastischen Archäologie, Bd 10, 5./6. Lief.,

Panzer-Pflanzenkunde, Berlin, 2004, p. 319-323.

- DREWS R., The End of the Bronze Age, Princeton, 1995.

- FLINDERS PETRIE W., Tools and Weapons, London, 1917.

- FRANKFORT H., The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Near East, London,

1969 (The Pelican History of Art).

- GABRIEL R., Soldiers’s Lives Through History. The Ancient World,

Westport, 2007.

- GÜTERBOCK H. et alii (ed.), The Hittite dictionary of the Oriental

Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, 2005.

- HERODOTES, History.

- Holly Bible.

- HOMER, The Iliad.

- HOOPER N., The Cambridge Illustrated Atlas of Warfare : The Middle Ages 768-

1487, Cambridge, 1996.

- KARAEORGHIS V., « Chronique des fouilles et découvertes

archéologiques à Chypre en 1972 », dans Bulletin de

correspondance hellénique vol. 97, n° 2, 1973, p. 601 – 689.

- KARAGEORGHIS V., « Deux avant-postes militaires de la fin du

XIIIe s. av. J.-C. à Chypre », dans Comptes-rendus des séances de

l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, vol. 126, n° 4, 1982, p.

704 – 724.

- KENDALL T., « Gurpisu ša awēli : The Helmets of the Warriors at

Nuzi », dans MORRISSON I., OWEN D. (ed.), Studies on the

Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians in Honor of R. Lacheman,

Winona Lake, 1981, p. 210-232.

- KING L., Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser King of Assyria B.C.

860-825, London, 1915.

- KUPPER J.-R., « Béliers et tours de siège », dans Revue

Archéologique, 91, 1997, p. 121-133.

- LAGARCE E., « La XXIIIe campagne de fouilles à Enkomi-Alasia

(Chypre). Rapport préliminaire », dans Syria, vol. 50, n° 1,

1973, p. 101 – 114.

- LERICHE P., « Doura Europos. Bilan des recherches récentes

», dans Comptes-rendus des séances de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-

lettres, vol. 138, n° 2, 1994, p. 395 – 420.

- MAC DONALD W. (ed.), The Bronze Age Occupation, Minneapolis,

1992 (Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece, volume

2).

- MANTELLO F. (ed.), Medieval Latin : An Introduction and Bibliographical

Guide, United States of America, 1996.

- MARGUERON J.-C., Mari Métropole de l’Euphrate au IIIe et au début du IIe

millénaire av. J.-C., Paris, 2004.

- MOOREY P., « The Mobility of Artisans and Opportunities for

Technology Transfer between Western Asia and Egypt in the

Late Bronze Age », dans SHORTLAND A. (ed.), The Social Context of

Technological Change : Egypt and the Near East, 1650–1550 B.C. : Proceedings of

a Conference Held at St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, 12–14 September 2000,

Oxford, 2001, p. 1-14.

- NEGRI-SCAFA P., The Scribes of Nuzi and Their Activities

Relative to Arms According to Palace Texts, dans MORRISSON

I., OWEN D. (ed.), Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the

Hurrians in Honor of R. Lacheman, Winona Lake, 1981, p. 53-69.

- NEVE P., Die Oberstadt von Hattuša. Die Bauwerke. 1. Die Bebautung im

Zentralen Tempelviertel, Berlin, 1999 (Deutsches Archäologisches

Institut).

- NICOLLE D., Saracen Faris 1050-1250 A.D., Oxford, 1994 (Warrior,

10).

- ORTHMANN W., Untersuchungen zur Späthetitischen Kunst, Bonn, 1971.

- PARANI M., Reconstructing the Reality of Images. Byzantine Material Culture

and Religious Iconography, Leiden, 2003 (The Mediaeval

Mediterranean, vol. 41).

- PARROT A., Mission Archéologique de Mari, Vol. III. Les Temples d’Ishtarat et

de Ninni-Zaza, Paris, 1967 (Bibliothèque archéologique et

historique, t. LXXXVI).

- PAUSANIAS, Description of Greece.

- PRITCHARD J., The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old

Testament, Princeton, 1954.

- RÉAU L., Dictionnaire Illustré d’Art et d’Archéologie, Paris,1930.

- ROBINSON H., Oriental Armour, London, 1967.

- ROSSELLINI I., Monumenti dell’ Egitto et della Nubia, vol. III, Pisa,

1844.

- SALIMBETTI A., The Greek Age of Bronze, http://www.salimbeti.com.

- SCHAEFFER C., « Fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit . Huitième

campagne (printemps 1936) », dans Syria vol. 18, n° 2, 1937,

p. 125 – 154.

- SCHAEFFER C., « Reprises des recherches archéologiques à Ras

Shamra-Ugarit. Sondages de 1948 et 1949, et campagne de 1950

», dans Syria, vol. 28, n° 1, 1951, p. 1 – 21.

- SCHMIDT E., Persépolis II : Contents of the Treasury and Other Discoveries,

Chicago, 1957.

- SCURLOCK J. A., « Assyrian Battering-Ram Revisited », dans

State Archives of Assyria Bulletin III/ii, 1989, p. 129-131.

- SETHE K., Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, B. 3, Historisch-Biographische

Urkunden, Leipzig, 1907.

- SPEISER E., « On Some Articles of Armour and their Names »,

dans Journal of the American Oriental Society LXX, 1950, p. 47-50.

- STARR R., Nuzi ; Report on the Excavations at Yorgna Tep Near Kirkuk, Iraq,

Cambridge, 1939.

- STONE G., A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and

Armor in all Countries and in all Times: Together with some Closely Related

Subjects, New York, 1961.

- STRONACH D., « Metal Objects from the 1957 Excavations at

Nimrud », dans Iraq, 20, 1958, p. 169-181.

- THORDEMAN B., Armour From the Battle of Wisby 1361 (Vol. 1, Text; Vol. II :

Plates), Stockholm, 1939.

- THUREAU-DANGIN Fr., Til Barsip, I/II, Paris, 1936 (Bibliothèque

archéologique et historique, XXIII).

- VANDENABEELE F., « L’idéogramme de l’armure sur une tablette

en Linéaire B de Tirynthe », dans Bulletin de Correspondance

Hellénique vol. 102, n° 1, 1978, p. 25-39.

- VENTZKE W., « Zur Rekonstruktion eines bronzen

Schuppenpanzers », Frühe Phöniker in Libanon 20 Jahre Deutsche

Ausgrabungen in Kamid el-Loz, Mainz am Rhein, 1983, p. 94-100 ;

117, 149.

- VIZCAINO SANCHEZ J., « Early Byzantine Lamellar Armour From

Carthago Spartaria (Cartagena, Spain) », dans Gladius XXVIII,

2008, p. 195-210.

- VOGELSANG-EASTWOOD G. M., Tutankhamun's Wardrobe: Garments from

the Tomb of Tutankhamum, Rotterdam, 1999.

- WALLIS-BUDGE E., Reign of Ashur-Nasir-Pal, 885-860 B.C., London, 1914.

- WHITE-MUSCARELLA O., Bronze and Iron. Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, 1988.

- WILCOX P., Rome’s Enemies (3) : Parthians and Sassanid Persians, Oxford,

1986 (Men-at-Arms, 175).

- WILKINSON J., The Ancient Egyptians. Their Life and Customs, Vol. 1,

London, 1994.

- WILLIAMS A., The Knight and the blast furnace : A History of the Metallurgy of

Armour in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period, Leiden, 2003

(History of Warfare, volume 12).

- WISE T., Ancient Armies of the Middle East, Oxford, 2002 (Men-at-

Arms, 109).

- WOOLLEY L., Alalakh, An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana,

Oxford, 1955 (Reports of the Research Committee of the

Society of Antiquaries of London).

- XENAKI-SAKELLARIOU A., « La représentation du casque en

dents de sanglier (Époque minoenne) », dans Bulletin de

Correspondance Hellénique vol. 77, n° 77, 1953, pp. 46-58.

- XENOPHON, Hipparchos.

- XENOPHON, Anabasis.

- XENOPHON, Cyropaedia.

- YADIN Y., The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological

Discovery, London, 1963.

- YAXLEY D., A Researcher’s Glossary of Words Found in Historical Documents

of East Anglia, Fakenham, 2003.

- ZACCAGNINI C., Les rapports entre Nuzi et le Hanigalbat,

dans Assur, vol. 2, n° 1, July 1979, pp. 1-27.

Figures

Figure 1 : Mail armour worn by a knight. Drawing of the author.Figure 2 : Detail of the interlocking rings composing the mail armour. Drawing of the author.

Figure 3 : Scale armour worn by a rider. Drawing of the authorFigure 4 : Detail of the scales laced on the backing composing the scale armour. Drawing of the author.

Figure 5 : Ring armour worn by a rider. Drawing of the author.

Figure 6 : Detail of the rings sewn on the backing composing the ring armour. Drawing of the author.

Figure 7 : Coat of plates worn by a knight. Drawing of the author.Figure 8 : Detail of the plates riveted between two layers of backing and composing the coat of plates. Drawing of the author.

Figure 9 : Jack of plates worn by a rider. Drawing of the author.Figure 10 : Detail of the small plates sewn between two layers of backing and composing the jack of plates. Drawing of the author.

Figure 11 : Brigandine worn by a footman. Drawing of the author.Figure 12 : Detail of the small plates riveted between two layers of backing and composing the brigandine. Drawing of the author.

Figure 13 : Lamellar armour worn by a mongolian rider. Drawing of the author.Figure 14 : Detail of the lamellae laced together to compose the lamellar armour. Drawing of the author.

Figure 15 : Laminated armour worn by a knight. Drawing of the author.Figure 16 : Detail of the metal stripes riveted together and composing the laminated armour. Drawing of the author.

Figure 17 : Broigne worn by a knight. Drawing of the author.Figure 18 : Detail of the metal nails studded on the backing inorder to compose a broigne. Drawing of the author.

Figure 19 : Plate armour worn by a knight. Drawing of the author.Figure 20 : Detail of the metal plates riveted, laced and fastened together in order to compose a plate armour. Drawing of the author.

Figure 21 : Latticed armour worn by a rider. Drawing of the author.Figure 22 : Detail of the interlocking, sewn and riveted leather stripes composing the latticed armour. Drawing of the author.

Figure 23 : Protections for the head. Left : helmet; right : coif. Drawing of the author.

Figure 24 : Protections for the body, wide version. Left : brynie (from top to the white line), hauberjon (from top to bottom); right : hauberk (from top to bottom). Drawing of the author.

Figure 25 : Protection for the neck and shoulders. Left : gorget; right : bishop mantle. Drawing of the author.

Figure 26 : Protection for the body, slim version. Left : tuttitu. Protection for the arm, right : shield. Protection for the lower limbs, bottom : cuisses. Drawing of the author.

Figure 27 : Protection for the vehicles. Above : cab of the chariot; bottom : caparison covering the flanks, back and chest of the horse. Drawing of the author.

Figure 28 : Protection of the siege-engines. Left : covered battering-ram, right : siege-tower. Drawing of the author.

Figure 29 : Early Dynastic coif. Drawing of the author.

Figure 30 : Early Dynastic bishop mantle. Drawing of the author.

Figure 31 : Early Dynastic tuttitu worn by a siege archer. Drawing of the author.

Figure 32 : Reinforced shield worn by an Early Dynastic pikemanto use both hands. Drawing of the author.

Figure 33 : Early Dynastic chariot covered with an animal skin or a leather reinforced garment. Drawing of the author.

Figure 34 : Chariot and onagres depicted on the War Panel of the Standard of Ur. Drawing of the author.

Figure 35 : Siege-engines from the beginning of the Bronze Age.Drawing of the author.

Figure 36 : Siege-engines from the period of Akkad. Drawing of the author.

Figure 37 : Marya warrior shot by an arrow in the armpit, the weak point of his scale armour. Drawing of the author.Figure 38 : Scale armour as depicted in the Tomb of Kenamun. Drawing of the author.

Figure 39 : Components and schematic of the Kolonna Aegina boartusks helmet. Drawing of the author.Figure 40 : Nuzi “big” and “small” scales from the house of Ini-Teshup. Drawing of the author.

Figure 41 : Boghazkoy armour scales found in the temple district. Drawing of the author.Figure 42 : The full set of scale armour as worn by the maryannu, according to the archaeological, visual and textual evidences. Drawing of the author.

Figure 43 : The scales from the Metropolitan Museum of Arts. Drawing of the author.Figure 44 : The horse scale armour from Dura Europos. Drawing of the author.

Figure 45 : Armour scales from Kamid el Loos. Drawing of the author.Figure 46 : The armour of Dendra and boar tusks helmet. Drawingof the author.

Figure 47 : The charioteer of Ramses II, Mena, depicted at the Temple of Abu Simbel. Drawing of the author.

Figure 48 : Scale armour depicted in the Tomb of Ramses III. Drawing of the author.Figure 49 : Different types of armour scales from Kamid el Loos. Drawing of the author.

Figure 50 : Pieces of bronze stripes from Kallitheia, perhaps from an armour corslet. Drawing of the author.Figure 51 : Bronze plates from Liatovouni, perhaps from an armour corslet. Drawing of the author.

Figure 52 : A soldier from the Warrior Vase. Drawing of the author.Figure 53 : Statue of a warrior or of a god with fringed skirt.Drawing of the author.

Figure 54 : Chariot crew from the time of Assurnasirpal II. Drawing of the author.Figure 55 : Siege-redoubt crew from the time of Assurnasirpal II. Drawing of the author.

Figure 56 : Sapper of Assurnasirpal II wearing a hauberjon. Drawing of the author.Figure 57 : Siege-redoubt crew from the time of Salmanazar III.Drawing of the author.

Figure 58 : Types of neo-assyrian armour scales found at Nimrud. Drawing of the author.Figure 59 : Lacing method of the neo-assyrian armour scales. Drawing of the author.

Figure 60 : Hunt relief from Sakçagözü displaying horse and manscale armour. Drawing of the author.

Figure 61 : Cavalrymen of Tiglath-Pileser III. Drawing of the author.Figure 62 : Siege-redoubt of Sargon II. Drawing of the author.

Figure 63 : Infantry binom of Senacherib. Drawing of the author.

Figure 64 : Chariot crew of Assurbanipal. Drawing of the author.

Figure 65 : Infantry binom of Tiglath-Pileser III. Drawing of the author.Figure 66 : Siege-engine of Assurnasirpal II with cover of overlapping shields. Drawing of the author.

Figure 67 : Chariot from Karkemish with roundels on the cab. Drawing of the author.Figure 68 : Nimrud ivory displaying horse with scale armour. Drawing of the author.

Figure 69 : Siege-engine of Tiglath-Pileser III. Drawing of theauthor.Figure 70 : Armour scale with the name of Sheshonq. Drawing of the author.