03-15-2006, 04:46 PM
Back to the Adamklissi metopes for a minute.
I'm looking at a photo of metopes No.XVIII and No.XX. Now, to my eye it's absolutely obvious that the armour plates overlap downwards. I could accept that this might be an artistic convention, but for one thing: the carvings are widely accepted as having been executed by soldiers in the field. Certainly, they are far cruder than those one sees on the Trajanic column. (This of itself creates a problem - nowhere on the Adamklissi metopes is there a hint of lorica segmentata armour being worn, but some 40% of the column shows figures wearing this type of armour - and that may well be "artistic convention". So which is the more accurate? They are certainly more or less contemporanceus).
What I'm suggesting is that the metopes are not intended as any form of artistic statement. They were a memorial made by soldiers, for soldiers. These people had a different agenda. If the armour plates overlapped the other way, why represent them so they overlap downwards? I would think that the last people to get it wrong would be those who used it in combat!
It is always possible that what the gladiator might do, a soldier might do differently. Mosaics of gladiators (such as those from North Africa) quite clearly show that there was a considerable layer of padding worn beneath the armour plates. A sword penetration between the plates would therefore encounter a thick layer of cloth - very difficult to penetrate, surely?
I do appreciate Mike Bishop's argument here. In a sense we have to go with what we have found. If there is only one example, then that is the one we have to use, pro tem. If ten others come along that go the other way, then we can modify our opinions. However, it's going from the 'particular' to the 'general' - and that isn't particular good 'science'! (Is archæology is science - discuss!)
I'm looking at a photo of metopes No.XVIII and No.XX. Now, to my eye it's absolutely obvious that the armour plates overlap downwards. I could accept that this might be an artistic convention, but for one thing: the carvings are widely accepted as having been executed by soldiers in the field. Certainly, they are far cruder than those one sees on the Trajanic column. (This of itself creates a problem - nowhere on the Adamklissi metopes is there a hint of lorica segmentata armour being worn, but some 40% of the column shows figures wearing this type of armour - and that may well be "artistic convention". So which is the more accurate? They are certainly more or less contemporanceus).
What I'm suggesting is that the metopes are not intended as any form of artistic statement. They were a memorial made by soldiers, for soldiers. These people had a different agenda. If the armour plates overlapped the other way, why represent them so they overlap downwards? I would think that the last people to get it wrong would be those who used it in combat!
It is always possible that what the gladiator might do, a soldier might do differently. Mosaics of gladiators (such as those from North Africa) quite clearly show that there was a considerable layer of padding worn beneath the armour plates. A sword penetration between the plates would therefore encounter a thick layer of cloth - very difficult to penetrate, surely?
I do appreciate Mike Bishop's argument here. In a sense we have to go with what we have found. If there is only one example, then that is the one we have to use, pro tem. If ten others come along that go the other way, then we can modify our opinions. However, it's going from the 'particular' to the 'general' - and that isn't particular good 'science'! (Is archæology is science - discuss!)
visne scire quod credam? credo orbes volantes exstare.
