Day Brown wrote:
> mark wrote:
>>>>> The amazon at http://www.daybrown.org/artifax/artifax.html
is
wearing
>>>>> tailored shorts, but Gimbutas shows us many male figures from 5000BC
>>>> Ah, riding pants, extremely reasonable, since the figure doesn't show
a
>>>> blanket or pad on the horse.
>>> This figure, which Mallory calls male- has tits. It makes you wonder
>>
>> Not sure about tits. Could very well be upper body armor. As I
mentioned,
>> I used to fight "heavy" in the SCA. You really want upper body, esp.
>> shoulder and upper arm protection, because a lot of blows will come
down
>> that way on you.
> I dont think so. Look at her waist, compare that with the width of the
Not necessarily convinced. For one, I'm thinking of my son, who at 18
could
almost turn sideways and be invisible <g>, but had decent shoulders.
<snip>
> Tamerlane's Amazons had Mongol bows, which were made of horn and sinew
> and recurved. The Image on Mallory is 5th cent BC. These recurved bows
Wait - where'd Timur come from in this conversation? He's 14th century CE.
<snip>
>> Oh, yes, and thigh protection, esp. on the side that you turn your body
>> towards, which is ****eld side. Let's not forget a good cut to the
inside
>> of the thigh kills you *very* fast - femural artery.
>> <snip>
> True, but these are archers, who were never engaged that close.
Hah. Hah. Hah. And if they got overrun, or ambushed, or a pincer attack.
It
happened.
Lessee, I still remember an SCA melee, long ago, and far away. I was one
of
three: one guy who wanted to be king, and one guy who was good, and me,
against the then-King of the East, and I think the Prince, and another
fighter. Our strategy: I was to keep the King busy, they'd take care of
the
other two, then come help me.
Three minutes later, it was me against the King, and both of them dead....
(I actually lasted longer than either of them, and got the King's leg, I
think).
<snip>
>>> Yes, I've looked that up, and people here get their panties in a wad
if
>>> you post about that also.
>>
>> "People here"? Huh? Where. Certainly not on a.p, or s.r.p (which I've
>> added to the crosspost): we have enough gays and lesbians among Pagans
>> who'd be offended by being left out.
> Sorry, was thinking of alt. archeology and history posters. But it aint
> been that long ago that pagans were too paranoid about Christian
> repression to push hot buttons with ***ual orientation or entheogens.
There's still most of us in the closet, at least in our work lives. But
homo***uality? That's been accepted everywhere I've been since I drifted
into Paganism in the early seventies.
mark
|
