1.2 - further and farther, the Qin Dynasty??

[Yuezhi]

You seem confused as to what I'm arguing for. I responded to your statement that "the development of horse armour must have started during the Three Kingdoms" by stating that horse armour is known from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng. These, however, are clearly the panoplies of charioteers, and not heavy horsemen. Even if the panoplies were ceremonial, the fact that such "ceremonial" horse armour was found alongside a "ceremonial" panoply which we know was actually employed (as shown in a couple of painted wooden figurines from Chu graves dating to the 4th-3rd c. BC from Changsha province) strongly implies that it was copied from an actual, contemporary example. I am simply stating that the genesis of Chinese horse armour goes back farther than the actual usage of horse armour by cataphracts, which is pretty much indisputable.

That is not what your original purpose, you stated very clearly

Development of horse armour therefore started much earlier than the Three Kingdoms period.

I am simply stating that the genesis of Chinese horse armour goes back farther than the actual usage of horse armour by cataphracts, which is pretty much indisputable.

These two statements show your inconsistency in arguing about the topic!
If the second quote is your purpose, you must state "Existence" instead of "development"
Since you have linked the ancient "horse armour" to Age of Fragmentation, you must have evidence for this linkage. I see no relation whatsoever. You have not even explained the big gaps of horse armour absence in Western Han dynasty as well. Of all what I am discussing, the sole subject is about heavy cavalry horse armour, and nothing earlier. Your arguments are therefore simply irrelevant.

You seem confused as to what I'm arguing for. I responded to your statement that "the development of horse armour must have started during the Three Kingdoms"

My statement is placed on the context of Cataphract and Heavy Cavalry of China. Or else what I am trying to say in earlier posts, chariots? Do you read my earlier posts? We are speaking of Heavy Cavalry, and strictly their horse armour. We are not discussing genesis or chariots whatsoever. If you want to say that cataphract horse armour must has derived from earlier chariot horse armours, then prove it! Let me repeat again so you don't get confused: I speculate that horse armours of heavy cavalry must have developed since three kingdoms. But I also say that I am not sure since I am not an expert on this period. My account on Shi Le is the earliest known textual records that state Chinese used full horse armours for their cavalry in the manner that we now call Cataphracts.

By these examples I am referring to the parallels for the human armour in the tombs, which of course can also be found later in Dian art and in the panoplies of the charioteers of Qin Shi Huang's tomb. The horse armour of the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng is not dissimilar to horse armour from The Age of Fragmentation, which would suggest some sort of continuity. It could even have been that nomads adopted the horse armour employed by Chinese charioteers and adapted it for use with cataphract mounts, as they did with the panoplies of Warring States charioteers themselves, and that this adapted form of armour was later re-introduced into China.

How human armours could be related to our strict discussion, as we are speaking of horse armours? Looking alike does not mean they are related unless you could find answers from textual evidences or indirectly from the position of archaeological evidences. Otherwise, many Chinese armours must have been in relation with Middle East just by looking. All of what you are posting, to me, is very nebulous. You lack textual record for your arguments, and several of your archaeological evidences simply show little cohesion to one another.
Speculation cannot be counted to be evidence. Please show concrete evidence for your linkage. I have failed to see how "nomads adopted the horse armour employed by Chinese charioteers" could be substantiated when we have no evidences of heavy cavalry in the form of horse armour of the Xiongnu. By what kind of textual and physical evidences that you base upon to conclude that nomadic horse armour derives from Chinese chariots.

Eventually, it is your claim of "development" that I am questioning and challenging.

Again, you seem to have missed the point of my argument. I don't take these early horse armours as indication of the use of cataphracts at such a date, just that horse armour was already in use by charioteers at that point.

Irrelevant, you are just arguing in the circle. What you are saying is actually a shift of ground from your earlier claim.

If you want a specific parallel, look at the chamfrons found in the tomb of the Marquis and then the depiction of a chamfron from a moulded brick from Dengxian, Henan province - beyond stylistic differences, the general form definitely shows continuity.

I have failed to see how the chamfrons of the Marquis could be seen as a continuity of what found in the end of Three Kingdoms and Early Jin dynasty.

As I said, there's no need to. Lacquered leather is an effective form of armour, and we find depictions of this sort of armour being worn elsewhere.

I don't understand, where did I say lacquered leather is ineffective, and where did I say they are not depicted. We virtually have no power to judge that these armours could be counted as "Development of horse armour" as you have claimed.
To be concise, you must establish validity of how horse armours of charioteers could be linked to horse armours of heavy cavalry. Otherwise, they are not "development", since something developed from something else means they must have an organic and linear relation.
Of the fact that horse armour's genesis in China started much earlier than Three Kingdoms, I simply agree. I have never disputed about this!

[MeinPanzer]

That is not what your original purpose, you stated very clearly




These two statements show your inconsistency in arguing about the topic!

Not at all. Those two statements are not in the least mutually exclusive, so what is your point? Both are true - the origins of horse armour do go back farther than the emergence of cataphracts in China probably around the end of the 2nd c. AD, and the development of such armour, whether directly related to later armour or not, thus started much earlier (around seven centuries earlier, to be precise) than its usage by cataphracts.

If the second quote is your purpose, you must state "Existence" instead of "development"

You're reading too much into the specific words I am using. What I meant by both statements is that contradictory to your statement that "the development of horse armour must have started during the Three Kingdoms," the origin of horse armour in China began much earlier than this period, and thus its development did as well.

Since you have linked the ancient "horse armour" to Age of Fragmentation, you must have evidence for this linkage. I see no relation whatsoever. You have not even explained the big gaps of horse armour absence in Western Han dynasty as well. Of all what I am discussing, the sole subject is about heavy cavalry horse armour, and nothing earlier. Your arguments are therefore simply irrelevant.

...

I have failed to see how the chamfrons of the Marquis could be seen as a continuity of what found in the end of Three Kingdoms and Early Jin dynasty.

Did you not read the statements in my previous post where I compared the form of the earlier and later armour forms with specific reference to evidence and suggested a reason why we may see a link between the two chronologically disparate groups despite the disappearance within China of such armour?

Since the only reconstructable portion of the Marquis of Zeng horse panoplies are the chamfrons, it is the most productive to examine these. There is a distinct similarity in form between the examples found in that tomb and the depictions of such armour on a figurine from Caochangpo in Xi'an; murals from the Three Chamber Tomb in Ji'an and Tonggou Tomb No. 12 in Ji'an; and inlaid and molded bricks from Danyang and Dengxian. There are minor differences one would expect, such as the style of ornamentation, but overall the form of these chamfrons matches very closely the form of the chamfrons from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng. This form, that of a "deep" chamfron covering the entire face and stretching down to cover the cheeks with holes for the eyes, is one not found elsewhere in the ancient world in the later first millennium BC or early first millennium AD.

My statement is placed on the context of Cataphract and Heavy Cavalry of China. Or else what I am trying to say in earlier posts, chariots? Do you read my earlier posts? We are speaking of Heavy Cavalry, and strictly their horse armour. We are not discussing genesis or chariots whatsoever.

Horse armour for chariot horses and horse armour for cataphracts are not all that different; therefore, as I've stated earlier, it is extremely likely that the nomads who first exhibit the use of cataphracts adopted the horse armour of charioteers for their mounts, just as the horsemen themselves adopted the panoplies of the charioteers, which is well attested. Thus, the charioteer horse armour of China during the Warring States period was probably reintroduced into China in the early first millennium AD, when cataphracts were adopted by the Chinese.

If you want to say that cataphract horse armour must has derived from earlier chariot horse armours, then prove it! Let me repeat again so you don't get confused: I speculate that horse armours of heavy cavalry must have developed since three kingdoms. But I also say that I am not sure since I am not an expert on this period. My account on Shi Le is the earliest known textual records that state Chinese used full horse armours for their cavalry in the manner that we now call Cataphracts.

And, since you seem to be confused: You state that the horse armour of heavy cavalry must have developed since the Three Kingdoms period. However, it is a fact that the horse armour of charioteers, which resembles the horse armour of the first Chinese cataphracts but not cataphracts of other parts of Asia, emerged much earlier than this period. Therefore, it is a logical hypothesis that the horse panoplies of these early charioteers, which are very similar to and could easily have been adopted by the later cataphracts, are linked to the armour of such later cavalry.

How human armours could be related to our strict discussion, as we are speaking of horse armours?

Because of the very reason that I explained in my previous post.

Looking alike does not mean they are related unless you could find answers from textual evidences or indirectly from the position of archaeological evidences.

Yes, it very much does show relation when considered within the archaeological context, which is what I am talking about.

Otherwise, many Chinese armours must have been in relation with Middle East just by looking.

Which is exactly the case. Read any scholarly literature on the emergence of cataphracts. The heavy armour of Warring States Chinese charioteers was adopted by Central Asian nomads and widely disseminated by them.

All of what you are posting, to me, is very nebulous. You lack textual record for your arguments, and several of your archaeological evidences simply show little cohesion to one another.

You seem incapable of understanding a basic argument, and you simply dismiss all points of argument without actually considering the evidence.

Speculation cannot be counted to be evidence. Please show concrete evidence for your linkage. I have failed to see how "nomads adopted the horse armour employed by Chinese charioteers" could be substantiated when we have no evidences of heavy cavalry in the form of horse armour of the Xiongnu.

Because, as you may not know, the archaeological record is incomplete, so sometimes we must work with considerable gaps. However, that is also what makes archaeology such an interesting area of study - because it requires in depth thought on such subjects. Our knowledge is thus not perfect, but by examining the archaeological context, we can determine similarities and dissimilarities, and thus come up with probable cases for the spread of elements of material culture, like horse armour. This study is almost totally divorced from literary evidence, since when that area provides us any evidence whatsoever, it is often vague and difficult to interpret. That's not to say that if there is literary evidence, it isn't useful, but in questions of the typology of arms and armour, the literary record leaves very much to be desired. I don't need any literary evidence to, for instance, tell you that the chamfrons found in the Korean and Japanese archaeological records from the fourth to fifth centuries AD are directly derived from Chinese examples - the archaeological evidence speaks for itself.

By what kind of textual and physical evidences that you base upon to conclude that nomadic horse armour derives from Chinese chariots.

To be more specific, a terracotta figurine of a "dancing barbarian" from northwestern China of a warrior wearing a cuirass very similar in form to the examples from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng and from various other scattered finds dating to between the fifth and third century BC is very likely a Xiongnu heavy cavalryman. See M.V. Gorelik, Oruzhie drevnego Vostoka. IV tysjatsheletie - IV v. do n. e. (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), 328, Pl. LVI, 21 and “Kušanskij dospech,” in Drevnjaja Indija: Istoriko-kul’turnye svjazi (Moscow: Nauka, 1982), 88, Fig. 3г by the same author. From here we find almost identical examples of this panoply on a bronze figurine from Talas-tal, fourth to second century BC, and a fourth to second century BC golden bracer from southern Siberia from the collection of Peter I (Figs. 3в and д, respectively). Later, we of course find variants of this panoply being worn by figures from first century BC to first century AD figures from Khalchayan and Indo-Scythian coinage.

Eventually, it is your claim of "development" that I am questioning and challenging.

The horse armour of the Warring States period is by virtue of its very existence evidence of development before the Three Kingdoms period.

Irrelevant, you are just arguing in the circle. What you are saying is actually a shift of ground from your earlier claim.

No, you are just profoundly misunderstanding my argument and seem to lack an understanding of many basic tenets of archaeology.

I don't understand, where did I say lacquered leather is ineffective, and where did I say they are not depicted. We virtually have no power to judge that these armours could be counted as "Development of horse armour" as you have claimed.

That statement was in response to your claim that the armours are ceremonial, as the usual argument I see relating to these finds is that "leather did not make effective armour, therefore these panoplies are ceremonial." Why do you think they were ceremonial?

To be concise, you must establish validity of how horse armours of charioteers could be linked to horse armours of heavy cavalry. Otherwise, they are not "development", since something developed from something else means they must have an organic and linear relation.

I've stated my thoughts on how there is a relation. Then again, given the gaps in the archaeological and literary record, they could even have been in use other ways and we may not have known it at all.

Of the fact that horse armour's genesis in China started much earlier than Three Kingdoms, I simply agree. I have never disputed about this!

Then why did you make this statement: "The development of horse armour must have started during the Three Kingdoms." As I stated above, the development of horse armour earlier than the Three Kingdoms period in China is proven by the very fact that the Marquis of Zeng horse armour exists.

[Yuezhi]

Did you not read the statements in my previous post where I compared the form of the earlier and later armour forms with specific reference to evidence and suggested a reason why we may see a link between the two chronologically disparate groups despite the disappearance within China of such armour?

Since the only reconstructable portion of the Marquis of Zeng horse panoplies are the chamfrons, it is the most productive to examine these. There is a distinct similarity in form between the examples found in that tomb and the depictions of such armour on a figurine from Caochangpo in Xi'an; murals from the Three Chamber Tomb in Ji'an and Tonggou Tomb No. 12 in Ji'an; and inlaid and molded bricks from Danyang and Dengxian. There are minor differences one would expect, such as the style of ornamentation, but overall the form of these chamfrons matches very closely the form of the chamfrons from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng. This form, that of a "deep" chamfron covering the entire face and stretching down to cover the cheeks with holes for the eyes, is one not found elsewhere in the ancient world in the later first millennium BC or early first millennium AD.

And that the overall structure of "deep" chamfrons means they must have been closely related. What about a babuta and a Greek Attic helmet, or a German sallet and Greek Attic one, seems to be the same, must have direct relation. This kind of argument is just nonsensical and even arbitrary. More grave a mistake, a chamfron could prove that horse armour of Chinese cataphracts can be related to older horse armours of chariot. What kind of argument is this? Even with a chamfron from Three Kingdoms, most schollars still exhibit their hesitation in making this period the start of Chinese cataphract, therefore further put the development to the Age of Fragmentation.

To be more specific, a terracotta figurine of a "dancing barbarian" from northwestern China of a warrior wearing a cuirass very similar in form to the examples from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng and from various other scattered finds dating to between the fifth and third century BC is very likely a Xiongnu heavy cavalryman. See M.V. Gorelik, Oruzhie drevnego Vostoka. IV tysjatsheletie - IV v. do n. e. (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), 328, Pl. LVI, 21 and “Kušanskij dospech,” in Drevnjaja Indija: Istoriko-kul’turnye svjazi (Moscow: Nauka, 1982), 88, Fig. 3г by the same author. From here we find almost identical examples of this panoply on a bronze figurine from Talas-tal, fourth to second century BC, and a fourth to second century BC golden bracer from southern Siberia from the collection of Peter I (Figs. 3в and д, respectively). Later, we of course find variants of this panoply being worn by figures from first century BC to first century AD figures from Khalchayan and Indo-Scythian coinage.

You could throw more and more words here, but nothing is worthwhile since no pictures have been posted. How do I know you are not trying to speak of something else. Presenting them here to be counted as valid.

Which is exactly the case. Read any scholarly literature on the emergence of cataphracts. The heavy armour of Warring States Chinese charioteers was adopted by Central Asian nomads and widely disseminated by them.

I don't need any literary evidence to, for instance, tell you that the chamfrons found in the Korean and Japanese archaeological records from the fourth to fifth centuries AD are directly derived from Chinese examples - the archaeological evidence speaks for itself.

You may not need to, since you don't even know what literary sources point out the relation. I could! Korean came to contact with Chinese Cataphract written in the Sui Shu.

Horse armour for chariot horses and horse armour for cataphracts are not all that different; therefore, as I've stated earlier, it is extremely likely that the nomads who first exhibit the use of cataphracts adopted the horse armour of charioteers for their mounts, just as the horsemen themselves adopted the panoplies of the charioteers, which is well attested. Thus, the charioteer horse armour of China during the Warring States period was probably reintroduced into China in the early first millennium AD, when cataphracts were adopted by the Chinese.

Sure that cataphracts were imported from nomadic people, but

it is extremely likely that the nomads who first exhibit the use of cataphracts adopted the horse armour of charioteers for their mounts, just as the horsemen themselves adopted the panoplies of the charioteers

I still don't see evidence for this. The liangdiang armour and mingguang jia armours used by horsemen of Northern Wei have nothing to do with armours of Charioteers.

Funny, three books published by Beijing University in assessing Zhou and Spring And Autumns period presents very well that their armours seem to develop without any outside influence. Article by Dr Albert Dien also said the same thing. So what kind of "scholarly literature" should I expect?
Furthermore, what you are posting simply show that Chinese chariot chamfrons might be imported from Nomadic world, it did not suggest anything about full horse armour of cataphract related to chariot one, or cataphract chamfron related to chariot one.

Which is exactly the case. Read any scholarly literature on the emergence of cataphracts. The heavy armour of Warring States Chinese charioteers was adopted by Central Asian nomads and widely disseminated by them.

OK, by your method of looking, tell me how this image lookes like anything I expect to find in an Assyrian chariot, or a Scythian one
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/ind...0chariot&st=30
The image is of post 35, showing the armour of the charioteers excavated from Tomb Marquis of Zeng
Furthermore, armours of charioteers are found in leather materials right here:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/ind...howtopic=18922
Image is in post 2. The helmet itself is shown very clear as well.

Do you expect me to believe that these armours are found in other cultures. Then bring images here, especially those of charioteers that you claim to be an influence from nomadic culture.

Your chamfrons, do they look like these:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/ind...st=15&start=15

Or do they look like the one found in Ma-Kailing shown in post 18 of the same thread?

Then why did you make this statement: "The development of horse armour must have started during the Three Kingdoms." As I stated above, the development of horse armour earlier than the Three Kingdoms period in China is proven by the very fact that the Marquis of Zeng horse armour exists.

Simple, because I am point at the Cataphract Armour, not those chariots, understand? Did you read back my previous posts? The fact that horse armour is in the tomb of Marquis of Zeng is simply irrelevant to what I am saying. Since what are spoken is all about Chinese Cataphract armours and not chariot ones. I have not agreed on your "looking method" yet, so I will not accept your argument to be valid.

No, you are just profoundly misunderstanding my argument and seem to lack an understanding of many basic tenets of archaeology.

I approach to History by both historical records and archaeological evidence. If you have problems with it, that is your misunderstanding.

Because, as you may not know, the archaeological record is incomplete, so sometimes we must work with considerable gaps. However, that is also what makes archaeology such an interesting area of study - because it requires in depth thought on such subjects. Our knowledge is thus not perfect, but by examining the archaeological context, we can determine similarities and dissimilarities, and thus come up with probable cases for the spread of elements of material culture, like horse armour.

Then what you are speaking, about the relationship between ancient horse armour from chariots and Cataphract horse armour is just a bunch of speculations. You therefore propose possible approach to the question and so I can take it. But if you count them as concrete evidence, then I will dispute.

That statement was in response to your claim that the armours are ceremonial, as the usual argument I see relating to these finds is that "leather did not make effective armour, therefore these panoplies are ceremonial." Why do you think they were ceremonial?

And I have never said the former, only the latter. Where did "leather did not make effective armour, therefore these panoplies are ceremonial." Are you fabricating my arguments?

Those which were found in the tomb could not be said to be used in real battlefield. Horse armours from Zhou to Han were extremely rare. Furthermore, nowhere in textual evidences from the Zuo Zuan to Shiji stated that such armours have ever been utilised in practical use. Of the fact that light cavalry dominated Chinese battlefields, there should be no doubts.

You seem incapable of understanding a basic argument, and you simply dismiss all points of argument without actually considering the evidence.

What evidences, a pile of words and quote, where no pictures have been shown, blame yourself for my dismissal.

[Subotan]

Woah, I'm confused, what's the argument again?

[The Persian Cataphract]

This is no way of conducting a proper discourse. If you cannot discuss without getting upset, the whole point of achieving the last word or reaching to a consensus, or even a friendly acceptive dissensus becomes void.

Keep it clean. MeinPanzer's references come from journals (Sometimes obscure, but highly recommendable Russian titles; Gorelik is a head-figure of anything pertaining to arms and armour of Central Asia), which may or may not contain properties such as figures, photographies, and artistic reconstructions. He is already providing the specifics. Asking him for these in a courteous manner in order to find out more, will leave two satisfied parts; bellowing at him to "show his face" as if this was a duel is not at all an approach that I would suggest.

[MeinPanzer]

Since this argument seems to be devolving steadily and point-by-point debate won't result in any sort of conclusion, I'll just summarize my response to the main points. I will provide citations for the figures and references to which I refer, which is standard academic practice. You can check these sources yourself to investigate further.

We know that the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng contained 12 human panoplies (Cheng Dong, Zhong Shao-yi, Zhang Bo-zhi, and Zhang Tao, Ancient Chinese Weapons – A Collection of Pictures, The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Publishing House, Peking, 1990, Fig. 4-112; Yang Hong, Weapons in Ancient China, Science Press, New York, 1992, p. 116, Figs. 167-171) and horse armour including two chamfrons (Dong et al., 4-119; Hong, p. 116, Fig. 172-174). Though this is the only example of horse armour from this time period, unless you suppose that this is the only one of its kind ever made before the advent of cataphracts in China, we must suppose that this kind of armour emerged before the dating of this tomb (around 433 BC) and that there was some development involved.

A terracotta figurine from northwestern China dating to between the fifth and third century BC (M.V. Gorelik, Oruzhie drevnego Vostoka. IV tysjatsheletie - IV v. do n. e. (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), 328, Pl. LVI, 21; M.V. Gorelik, “Kušanskij dospech,” in Drevnjaja Indija: Istoriko-kul’turnye svjazi (Moscow: Nauka, 1982), 88, Fig. 3г) clearly exhibits the characteristics of this type of armour which do not appear outside of areas of Chinese influence at this time. Those are a high, three-sided rectangular collar with an open front; a high waisted cuirass with a "skirt" composed of four rows of large quadrangular armour plates; and segmented arm armour. These exact characteristics are exhibited in a bronze figurine from Talas-tal dating to the fourth to second century BC (Gorelik, “Kušanskij:” Pl. 3в; Gorelik, Oruzhie: Pl. LIII 18. F.P. Grigor’ev and R. Ismagil, “The Cult Bronzes of Semirechya of the Saka Period,” in Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 3, No. 2-3 (1996), 248, Fig. 1.3; T.N. Senigova, Srednevekovyj Taraz (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1972), 9, Pl. 1, 15.) and again in a fourth to second century BC golden bracer from southern Siberia (Gorelik, “Kušanskij,” Pl. 3д; Gorelik, Oruzhie, Pl. LIII 19а-б; Véronique Schiltz, Die Skythen und andere Steppenvölker (Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1994), Fig. 256). We further find components of an actual example of an iron panoply of this form dating to the fourth to third centuries BC from Chirik-rabat (S.P. Tolstov, Po Drevnim del’tam Oksa i Yaksarta (Moscow: Vostochnaia literature, 1962) 142, 148-50, Fig. 82; Brentjes, Arms of the Sakas (and other tribes of the Central Asian steppes) (Varanasi: Rishi Publications, 1996), 64, Pl. XXXIX; Albert. E. Dien, “A Brief Survey of Defensive Armor across Asia,” in Journal of East Asian Archaeology 2, No. 3-4 (2000) (hereafter Dien, “Survey”), 12.)

This clearly traces the spread westward of this type of human panoply, but what of the horse armour? This area is doubly difficult to discuss because the horse armour from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng was too jumbled to reconstruct except for the chamfrons and we only have a single, incomplete depiction of a cataphract's horse armour from the centuries BC from anywhere in the old world outside of China (from Khumbuz-tepe in Chorasmia: M. Mambetullaev, Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, No. 3 (1977), 278, Fig. 1; Gorelik, “Kušanskij,” Fig. 3е; Gorelik, Oruzhie, 323, Pl. LIII 20; Nick Sekunda, Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC (Stockport: Montvert Publications, 1993), 76, Figs. 29, 30; Kazim Abdullaev, “Armour of Ancient Bactria,” in In the Land of the Gryphons. Papers on Central Asian Archaeology in Antiquity (Firenze: Casa Editrice Le Lettere, 1995), 175, Fig. 6.6; Valerii P. Nikonorov, The Armies of Bactria 700 BC – 450 AD Vol. 2 (Stockport: Montvert Publications 1997), 4, Fig. 4g). However, knowing that nomads adopted the human heavy panoply of these early Chinese charioteers at the same time as the emergence of the cataphract, it is highly likely that they adopted such armour for their mounts simultaneously with their own adoption of such armour. This can also be inferred from the fact that the early armour depicted on the Khumbuz-tepe fragment is composed of large rectangular plates, like the panoplies found in the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng.

As to horse armour within China, I don't think evidence is abundant enough to determine when it fell out of use, but we don't find any horse armour associated with the charioteers of the tomb of Qin Shi Huang, so it was probably some time before this. However, when horse armour does re-emerge later (albeit for cataphract mounts instead of chariot horses), the deep form of the chamfrons employed is very similar in form to the restored chamfrons from the tomb of the Marquis of Zeng (Yang Hong, "Lamellar Armor and Horse Bardings in Yamato and Koguryo and their Connections with China," in the Journal of East Asian Archaeology 2, 3-4 (2000), Fig. 3). This is of interest because this does not match our depictions of chamfrons from anywhere else in the Old World at this time; it does not match depictions from Kushan, Scythian, Iranian, Caucasian, or Sarmatian sources. All of those peoples employed chamfrons which did not reach beneath the eyes, let alone the cheeks of the horse, and were often simpler in form. (The chamfron of the heavy cavalryman from the Canakkale sarcophagus does go below the eyes, but only slightly, and it doesn't even reach the ears.)

So, we may either propose two independent inventions of this style of horse armour, which seems highly unlikely, or we may propose a connection between the two. The connection need not be direct culturally or geographically, though, which is why it seems likely that nomads adopted this style of armour from the Chinese, adapted it to cataphract warfare and employed it themselves before reintroducing it to China some time around the last half of the second century AD. To provide a historical precedent showing that such reintroductions of arms did occur in the ancient world, Greek cavalrymen employed large round shields up to the fifth century BC, when using such shields on horseback fell out of style. This practice persisted among the Greeks of Italy after that period, however, and they later reintroduced it to Greece in the third century BC, where it became widespread again.

I've presented my perspective, and you can form your own opinion of it.