01-15-2015, 11:29 AM
To Márk György Kis: I understand better what you want to say concerning the Amazonomachy mosaic. Indeed, it is necessary me to correct. Not living very far from Paris, I had the opportunity to go in Louvre to see and to photograph this mosaic. Contrary to said, Ptéruges is not the same color as the armor but mainly constituted by white and red tessels which give a pinkish aspect to these. There is many yellow tesselles, but it is not relevant from the set. Here my misunderstand when you assert that ptèruges is of the same color as the cuirass. I can tell you that the contrast is real.
Idem to the mention of Geneva plate. I don't understand why you quote this source when the armors of the imperial guard around Valentinian dont' appears...
Thanks Renatus to the Nabeul Mosaic link. I am willing to admit that this mosaic, stemming from a well known literary theme (scene of Iliade) is borrow of a marked stylization, and even very marked. However it is well a late roman mosaic and not a re-use of héllénistic origin. Some elements can be retranscribed by late roman esthetics spreads, a little as in the biblical scenes of the Church St Marie major of Rome.
"I can see nothing valuable on the Nabeul mosaics, please provide pictures, also for the Red Sea crossing fresco."
It is easy... If we go there the debate is naturally closed. Idem, you refute rather easily the mosaic of the house of the Medusa of Alter Do chao, it is a pity because numerous elements are very interesting to identify on this mosaic. So that each of us gets an idea, I put here a link:
https://www.academia.edu/1621048/A_Portr..._Portugal_
"On the Dura fresco, you can only see the pauldron on the left side figure, whereas you see the same pauldron forms on the figures standing in the back (...) As for Low Ham, that clearly seems like a kind of a subarmalis, not armor.
Objectively no.
Idem to the mention of Geneva plate. I don't understand why you quote this source when the armors of the imperial guard around Valentinian dont' appears...
Thanks Renatus to the Nabeul Mosaic link. I am willing to admit that this mosaic, stemming from a well known literary theme (scene of Iliade) is borrow of a marked stylization, and even very marked. However it is well a late roman mosaic and not a re-use of héllénistic origin. Some elements can be retranscribed by late roman esthetics spreads, a little as in the biblical scenes of the Church St Marie major of Rome.
"I can see nothing valuable on the Nabeul mosaics, please provide pictures, also for the Red Sea crossing fresco."
It is easy... If we go there the debate is naturally closed. Idem, you refute rather easily the mosaic of the house of the Medusa of Alter Do chao, it is a pity because numerous elements are very interesting to identify on this mosaic. So that each of us gets an idea, I put here a link:
https://www.academia.edu/1621048/A_Portr..._Portugal_
"On the Dura fresco, you can only see the pauldron on the left side figure, whereas you see the same pauldron forms on the figures standing in the back (...) As for Low Ham, that clearly seems like a kind of a subarmalis, not armor.
Objectively no.
