leather cuirass

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Ave Fratres,

I am surprised no one resurrected the crocodile armor thread. It's undeniably leather,,,...but there was heated debate as to if it was supposed to be functional leather armor or more of a cult object. At least it exists and I believe has a reliable context for dating. Then again , it is not in context strictly a roman construction.

Just my two dinars worth of opinion.


Regards from a sunny but cool balkans Arminius Primus aka Al

Hmmm, surely this is the original scale armour!!

or perhaps it should be classified as callous armour!

[Matthew Amt]

We also might ask the crocodile how well it worked! Hee hee hee....

Matthew

[Luca]

As I mentioned many times I don't have problems with leather armours, generally speaking, but I have many troubles with leather segmetatas. In the past the discussion raged on polemic tones overall in Italy.

What is written in the D'Amato's book is correct, and (even if I didn't read it by myself) is referred only to generic leather armour.

One of the main supporter of the idea of the leather segmentata is very well known, and they have a fresh new page that welcomes the new revelations:

http://www.arsdimicandi.net/ad_1_000020.htm

They show on the right-top corner the British Museum supposed armour, that it seems to me not to be a piece of segmentata because it is a single piece of leather, am I right?

[Matt Lukes]

Yeah, that's a girdle; the slits at the front I should think are simply there to allow one to bend forward- otherwise the leather would be a significant impedence to this simple movement.

[Luca]

right, this IMO would suggest that it cannot be referred to the segmentatas shown on the Trajan's Column.

[Matt Lukes]

Oh clearly not. A few slits does not a segmentata make LOL And it sure diminishes the case calling on obviously inappropriate 'evidence' like that- it makes one look like one is seriously reaching for anything at all to support a failing thesis...

[Neuraleanus]

They show on the right-top corner the British Museum supposed armour, that it seems to me not to be a piece of segmentata because it is a single piece of leather, am I right?

D'Amato uses this piece of leather as evidence for the existence of leather segmentata. I'm not sure that this item has any military context at all.

[Luca]

D'Amato states this in his book? I wonder, he told me that he was writing about generic armour not specifically to segmentata or just as possibility not a proof at all.

[caiustarquitius]

I´d rather comment on the general use of sources, which is IMO, frankly, unprofessional.
It is a teleological argument, first assuming the existence of such armour, and then looking for evidence. Methodologically this is frivolous. The normal mode is to have a specific question, then to look at the sources, to discuss the sources with pro- and contra arguments if necessary, and finally to offer a result.

Wherever I have the comment (Ancient Art) below, this refers to artistic convention, the general inability of ancient artists to naturalistically display human bodies, and the possibility that certain styles that were en vogue at certain periods in Roman history in ways of display as well as construction / production of art might influence an interpretation of the sources, especially when one assumes, as seems to be the case here, that all the art we have preserved from antiquity is photorealistic.

My commet follows the sequence in which the sources are presented in the text, but only for those for which actual pictorial evidence is given in the text, so that you can compare easily without having to look into an other book, when re-checking what I wrote below.

I will first start with the section on leather musculata:

AaAotIRSp- 135-136
1. Augustus statue Primaporta (AaAotIRS plate 4): could equally display a silver cuirass
2.Arelatum frieze(AaAotIRS plate 103): there is no evidence whatsoever that the displayed cuirass is leather. Could equally be metal (Ancient art)
3.Pertinax statue (AaAotIRS plate 163):here is no evidence whatsoever that the displayed cuirass is leather. Could equally be metal or even fabric.
4. Pendant from Windisch (AaAotIRS plate 178): Just read footnote 405. There is no evidence whatsoever that this object is related to a leather armour.
5. Caelius- stone (AaAotIRS plate 157): unaware of a possible change in the tone of the pigments used, unaware of the possibility of a use of intentionally patinized brass or bronze
6. Dancing Centurio (AaAotIRS plate 179): unaware of the possibility of a use of intentionally patinized brass or bronze, equally not regarding the high "impressionistic" character of Pompejian art in general
7.Villa Albani (AaAotIRS plate 98): Could equally be fabric, or mail (Ancient Art)
8. Facilis (AaAotIRS plate IV, 72) could equally be fabric or mail
9.Gardun relief (AaAotIRS plate 105) coould equally be fabric or mail (Ancient Art)
10. casa dei Vetti fresco (AaAotIRS plate 86) is pretty much what is common in etruscan art. Convention.
11.Gardun relief (AaAotIRS plate 105) The hole of the sleev could equally be a cornu, as can be seen between the shields just on the picture on the left of this one. It is far from "clear" since the relevant part is broken off.

More to follow.

[Matthew Amt]

They show on the right-top corner the British Museum supposed armour, that it seems to me not to be a piece of segmentata because it is a single piece of leather, am I right?

D'Amato uses this piece of leather as evidence for the existence of leather segmentata. I'm not sure that this item has any military context at all.

I got a brief look at the book this past weekend, and I remember that D'Amato insisted that this leather thing was *Roman*, not Egyptian, though he doesn't say why in the immediate text. There might have been a footnote that explained, but I didn't have time to dig deeper. No mention of an inscription, context, etc., that I saw.

For that matter, I don't recall seeing any dimensions of the piece in question. Could it possibly have some other function, like a piece of horse harness? Granted, it *looks* like a charioteer's torso wrap thingy, but if he's going to base so much on this piece we need more details.

Matthew

[jho]

Good point. On the dimension of the piece and further information, Caballo provided the following link in the thread on Mr. D'Amato's book:

-Leather segmentata- The prime evidence here has always been sculptural- e.g. Trajan’s column or the Portonaccio sarcophagus. The argument against has always been that there was no archeological evidence. However, D’Amato quotes the leather displayed from Qasr Ibrim, which the British Museum also classify as a possible body armour (http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_details.aspx?objectid=145922&partid=1&searchText=qasr+ibrim+roman&fromADBC=ad&toADBC=ad&numpages=10&orig=%2fresearch%2fsearch_the_collection_database.aspx&currentPage=1) . For what its worth, I started off extremely sceptical about the possibility of leather segmentata. By the end, I certainly believed that there is a case to be made, but not 100% convinced. But could all those contemporary Roman sculptors, acting independently in different places, all be wrong?

It appears that the object has the following Dimensions: Length: 51 centimetres (approx.), Width: 8.8 centimetres. This would make the piece more of a broad waistband than actual armour, assuming that it is complete.

[Olaf]

Wouldnt this discussion, especially the detailed critizism of Chritian be better placed in the aforementioned thread about the book of Mr. D'Amato.
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=24697&start=160
As both Mr. D'Amato and Mr. Sumner were active in this thread they might be better able to defend their position there.

Or else give them both a heads up to this thread.

[Matt Lukes]

Good point. On the dimension of the piece and further information, Caballo provided the following link in the thread on Mr. D'Amato's book:

-Leather segmentata- The prime evidence here has always been sculptural- e.g. Trajan’s column or the Portonaccio sarcophagus. The argument against has always been that there was no archeological evidence. However, D’Amato quotes the leather displayed from Qasr Ibrim, which the British Museum also classify as a possible body armour (http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/s ... rentPage=1) . For what its worth, I started off extremely sceptical about the possibility of leather segmentata. By the end, I certainly believed that there is a case to be made, but not 100% convinced. But could all those contemporary Roman sculptors, acting independently in different places, all be wrong?

It appears that the object has the following Dimensions: Length: 51 centimetres (approx.), Width: 8.8 centimetres. This would make the piece more of a broad waistband than actual armour, assuming that it is complete.

51x8.8cm? That barely goes around half my waist (which isn't ample I assure you LOL), and it's exceedingly narrow- I admit I'm guilty of not considering dimensions at first when I saw the 'slits' and assumed they were ther to allow forward bending, but clearly at 88mm, they're not exactly necessary for that. So as a 'waistband' it'd fit a child?

And is it really appropriate for this to become another specific individuals' theories (dubious or not) thread though- that and the topic of leather armour in general have already multiple-page threads anyway, so unless there's something new, just re-hashing the same stuff here doesn't seem at all necessary...

[Dan Howard]

I got a brief look at the book this past weekend, and I remember that D'Amato insisted that this leather thing was *Roman*, not Egyptian, though he doesn't say why in the immediate text.

Of course it is Roman. It was found in Egypt and there were Roman soldiers in Egypt so anything found in Egypt must have been used by a Roman soldier.

[Matthew Amt]

51x8.8cm? That barely goes around half my waist (which isn't ample I assure you LOL), and it's exceedingly narrow- I admit I'm guilty of not considering dimensions at first when I saw the 'slits' and assumed they were ther to allow forward bending, but clearly at 88mm, they're not exactly necessary for that. So as a 'waistband' it'd fit a child?

Isn't the middle missing? Basically the two ends exist, tied together with leather thong, but we can't really say how long it is. Unless I'm mis-remembering--only got a short look! (More didn't seem worthwhile!) But yeah, at 3-1/2" wide, "segmentata" is just not the first thing that springs to mind.

If it has 4 legs, a mane, and a tail, and says "Neigh", why should the first conclusion be "Zebra"? Or heck, "Pegasus"...

Matthew

[salimbeti]

The leather element in the British Museum it is roman simply because it has been found in a Roman camp in Egypt together other roman elements/weaponry like for instance spear points, arrows, part of shields, elements of caligae etc…
It is correctly classified by the British Museum archaeologists like a possible piece of roman leather cuirass.
Every serious scholars who made his research not only from his computer desk or in the bookstore can have evidence about it and the other elements just visiting the British Museum !!

[Dan Howard]

So why is it an armour component and not a belt?

[salimbeti]

So why is it an armour component and not a belt?

Because its general shape it seems more likely a part of a banded armour rather than a simple belt.
For this reason it is described as "Possible piece of cuirass" .
Anyway this element attested as this kind of leather band features were actually used in the Roman army for protection.

[Neuraleanus]

Anyway this element attested as this kind of leather band features were actually used in the Roman army for protection.

The topic of this discussion, how do you know this? if Roman army had used leather armour I would expect there to be many finds as we have many leather artifacts from roman sites, at Vindolanda the most common find is shoes, yet no leather armour. The sculptural evidence cannot always be believed.

[Matthew Amt]

The leather element in the British Museum it is roman simply because it has been found in a Roman camp in Egypt together other roman elements/weaponry like for instance spear points, arrows, part of shields, elements of caligae etc…

Okay, that sounds good. But I'd like to hear more about this Roman camp, just to be sure. Partly because there are some pretty huge mountains of conclusions built on this particular grain of evidence.

Every serious scholars who made his research not only from his computer desk or in the bookstore can have evidence about it and the other elements just visiting the British Museum !!

Sure, but some of us non-serious scholars don't happen to have funding to drop by the other side of the Atlantic to look at a belt, so we have to depend on the serious ones to dole out data. Maybe I only know enough to be dangerous (heck, I'm pretty sure of it!), but I'm not the type to roll over and accept conclusions about leather segmented armor based on a find like this. If you want me to stop arguing, you need to come up with something better.

So why is it an armour component and not a belt?

Because its general shape it seems more likely a part of a banded armour rather than a simple belt.
For this reason it is described as "Possible piece of cuirass" .

No, it isn't. There are no holes by which it might be attached to other bands by means of rivets or laces, for starters. Not only does it not look like any surviving pieces of Roman segmented armor, it doesn't even look like the depictions that are used as proof of Roman leather segemented armor!

Anyway this element attested as this kind of leather band features were actually used in the Roman army for protection.

Claimed, not attested. ANY segmented armor shown in artwork can be made of metal rather than leather, usually more easily and always offering better function and more protection. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that any segmented armor shown in artwork is leather and not metal. This leather band is the first piece we've ever seen that has even been claimed to be a piece of leather segmented armor, and that claim is baseless.

The wide use of iron segmented armor for over 3 centuries has been proven by literally thousands of finds, some of which even include remains of internal leather straps. The existence of Roman leather segmented armor is complete theory, with no clear archeological backing, and it's a theory which is sounding more deperate every day.

Call us a bunch of skeptics, but you're just going to have to show us something more conclusive.

Valete,

Matthew