Quote:Hi Matt,
Let me correct something I said earlier : The possibility that he's wearing nothing underneath can be safely ruled out because of the pteruges, IMO. They're attached to something.
Oh I agree completely- it does seem quite clear that the pteruges are behind the 'hems' of the arm holes and lower edge of the outer garment.
Quote:Quote:Okay now the issue here may be semanitc
Yes, I think you're right.
Quote:however if it can be considered that a simple leather tunic with pteruges is a subarmalis, then certainly I can see that what the figure is wearing can be considered possibly a subarmalis
Yes, I would consider a subarmalis to be either padded or not. Mine isn't :lol: I just use it for pteruges. The evidence is ambiguous, at least when it comes to the Romans.
Ah, okay- I had been thinking the term applied to padded garments worn under armor, but it did occur upon looking at some images that those who wear a hamata don't always go for any padding- just a leather tunic.
The only issue I see arising from such a broad definition is how do you tell a subarmalis from any other garment? Do you assume that pteruges ONLY ever appeared on subarmali? (aside- how do you pluralize words ending in 'is' anyway?). If so, how would you go about proving that hypothesis? The debate surrounding this sculpture can be taken as evidence to the contrary, depending on your point-of-view...
Quote:Quote: you're saying that it was therefore he must be wearing armor that we just can't see- correct?
If we consider the context, yes. If we ignore the context, we still have his pteruges to suggest (IMO) that at the very least, he's wearing a subarmalis.
Once again, I'll certainly agree that he is wearing
two garments- if the postulate that only subarmali had pteruges is correct.
Quote:Quote:However that still leaves the lack of anything at the neck and truly the complete lack of any suggestion of armor.
The neck, as we can see, is heavily damaged. So I'd rather not take it into consideration.
Yeah, it's unfortunate that the 'restoration' is so extensive- does anyone know for sure where it extends to? Does it really go as far as the neckline of the garment?
Quote:Quote:Wait a second- the biggest piece of 'evidence' your argument relies on is that ALL the figures are armored- now it's only two of them?
Well, there are only two that are undeniably armored in the foreground. The third has that over-tunic (or whatever it is). And the two others in the background are only visible from the neck and above wearing helmets and holding shields.
Agreed- but then that kind of invalidates the argument that since all the others are wearing armor, the fellow who doesn't appear to be must have it under the garment, yes? It seems to me that it's just as likely that the other two are dressed like the third guy- without any way to demonstrate things either way I mean. I suppose from purely a statistical point-of-view you could say there's a 2 in 5 chance they're all actually armored, but a 1 in 5 chance one or more isn't :wink: I've always hated statistics :lol:
Quote:Quote:Jamie, I'm not sure just why, but it seems you have the impression that I'm trying to prove the opposite idea that you are- that's not the case at all.
No one can prove anything. Sorry, if I sound confrontational. I was just trying to explain my rationale for making assumptions. I get the impression that your philosophy is that it's never a good idea to formulate theories based on limited facts and clues. As long as you say you're theorizing, I don't think it's dangerous because it's just theory and one of many at that.
I think it's fun to speculate, and I try to point out the weaknesses and strengths of each individual theory.
Oh, you didn't come off as confrontational- I just wanted to make sure you didn't see ME as that way :lol: It's very easy, when all one has is writing and the odd little face, to gauge the tone of a conversation, especially when it is definitely an argument with clear sides. That being the case, I personally find it important to make sure that it's clear things are meant as a discussion, an evaluation of ideas, etc.
And no, I don't have any issues with formulating theories based on limited information- often one HAS to, yes? I'm trained as a scientist so I'm very critical of such arguments in an effort to understand them as well as spot flaws that may invalidate the idea (or recognize good ideas that support it well). Assumptions and tiny clues are just fine for formulating hypotheses, but at least by some definitions, an hypothesis must be
testable- in order to validate the idea and demonstrate that the assumptions are accurate. Unfortunately, it's really hard to test hypotheses like this- we can't just head to a lab and try it out :lol: The only 'tests' I can think of immediately is to evaluate further sculptures, etc. bearing the hypothesis in mind, then asking do they fit? If the hypothesis is that pteruges are always associated with a subarmalis, I'd look at all representations of pteruges- do any appear in the absence of armor? Well the problem with this one is of course that this particular relief is the possible contrary evidence depending on how you see it. Given that we have such a limited information base, I would accept that a single contrary example of something, provided that it's not clearly opposite, doesn't necessarily invalidate an hypothesis. If it's the case that every other depiction of pteruges also has armor such that the pteruges are likely part of a subarmalis, I wouldn't say the questionable figure in the Louvre Praetorian relief disproves it.
In truth, because our evidence base is so unbelievably tiny compared to the original population of a given thing, the best we can say in most cases is that something 'could be' or 'often was'; things like 'always' and 'never' are simply unsupportable with what we have. We can say 'such and such' has never been seen to be other than 'whatever', but that's all. For all we know, something is skewing our evidence, or there's other material yet to be found, etc.
Quote:Quote:I simply see no way it can be suggested that he could be wearing armor
The only reason I do is because of the context. So, I think it's just slightly more likely than not that he's wearing armor. Otherwise, I would agree.
Well if it were a case of 5 to 1 armored to unarmored, I would certainly have a lot of confusion at his unarmored appearance and accept more the idea that perhaps it's just the sculpture- but even then I'd have trouble, given the problems with the sculpture- using this as evidence that garments were worn over armor. That's the real issue, right? That this sculpture shows this was the case- but that's a second level hypothesis based on a unclear first one- more and more unlikely as I wrote previously.
Quote:Quote:Now I do hope that you're not starting to think of me as an anatgonist- I really don't mean or want to be
I never got that impression. Communicating over the internet creates misperceptions, in my experience. I think that's why they created emoticons idea:
Okay, I've been replying here in order, so I just repeated this above :lol: Good to know we're on the same page! I'm more used to other fora where people can be a tad childish when people don't agree with them- so I do try to make sure this doesn't happen whenever I can. It's hard enough to disagree with someone or offer criticism in person, that in writing it's doubly-hard (although the emoticons do help :wink: ) I usually go back and re-write things a couple of times just to be sure words I've chosen won't be misunderstood as harsh or confrontational- I don't mean to say I took yours that way Jaime- I try to take things as I, myself, would mean them until shown otherwise.
Matt