RomanArmyTalk

Theo/Jaime wrote:-
"What photo ? Is there a link ? "

Sorry! The column base picture is linked in Tarbicus and Salvianus' post on page 2 of the thread that Tarbicus linked to above.....here

http://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/resources/ ... lbase3.jpg

...I also found 2 more sides on this site, the fourth is the entrance....


"The armor's description sounds strange. A hybrid of leather and metal with large buckles...hmm.. "
....no, not quite...the column armour has large buckles, the mosaic apparently does not. It was because the buckles were left off/omitted, that I suggested the mosaic artist may have intended a "hybrid" ( possibly! :? )

"Do the segs look something like this perhaps ? " ... :lol: :lol: :lol: Not at all !! The Column one has large buckles, the full width of each hoop, so that they are like a series of belts....close up, the 'tongue' of each hoop/belt is visible through the buckle, with buckle pin through, exactly like a belt...it really can't realistically be anything else...

Thanks, Paul.

The description is clearer now that I see the photo.

I'm not sure what to make of it. Maybe it's a jerkin of some kind. Or not. It's highly reminiscent of the Type 'C' segmentata.

The location of this flexible cuirass is interesting. There's another example on the base of another column (I forget which one) but it's a musculata. Here's the link. I suppose it could be coincidental.

Tarbicus,

Getting back to the mosaic : The length of the armor is also consistent with lorica squamata and here's a good example.

In other instances of Roman art the depiction of squamata is sometimes very simplied as it is here on this tombstone. A simple grid design is used.

~Theo

Theo, I pinpointed both hamata and squamata in the same mosaic, and they look very different to my eyes. To be honest, lamellar is the only other possible candidate.

For instance, here's one figure's mixed armour. The cuirass is definitely scale, but the legs are, IMHO, lamellar or femenalia. The style of the leg armour looks different to the 'seg-type' I first pointed out, as well as has the individual plates defined in the vertical.



We have a current topic elsewhere reconstructing the Dura lamellar leg armour, and I don't see why this couldn't be similar for infantry. On the other hand, they may be femenalia :wink: I wish they'd painted these scenes....

There have been Greek helmets found which were painted so why wouldnt the Romans paint their equipment?

if only to keep away the rust.... LOL

M.VIB.M.

Tarbicus wrote:-

Quote: but the legs are, IMHO, lamellar or femenalia

...almost certainly feminalia ( dk brown wool?), and it's only the 'break-up' caused by the mosaic medium that gives a (false) impression of 'lamellar pieces'..... :? )

Oi, you can't blame someone for trying :wink:

Tarbicus wrote:-

Quote:Oi, you can't blame someone for trying :wink:

...of course one cannot be certain, but I take it that , on balance of probability, you think more likely feminalia/breeches too, Jim ?

A quick thought re the depiction of armour in a mosaic as being iron. The mosaic artist will inevitably be constrained by the colours of stone that he has available for his 'picture'. You can't mix stone colours in the way that you can paint! Armour that is meant to be either tinned or silvered has to be rendered in such a way that it is obvious that it isn't bronze/brass. This may well lead to the use of darker stone colours than would be accurate, which might fool a modern viewer into thinking that he/she was looking at a depiction of an iron object. Alternatively, maybe the artist simply wasn't very good at his craft - a case of "near enough is good enough"!

To a lesser degree, this might also be true for wall paintings. The number of paint pigments that were available would be somewhat limited (judging by analyses that I have seen of the actual pigments involved). What this means is that, at the very least, it is somewhat dangerous to rely on this sort of 'evidence' when trying to arrive at a conclusion for such things as the colours of armour and clothing.

That the Romans painted their houses. temples, etc. is beyond doubt. We also know that they painted their statues and their tombstones. However, these surfaces have 'tooth' and will retain pigment. Metal, however, requires a primer coat before the paint will adhere. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that they had such a material available.

Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)

Mike wrote:-

Quote: I've yet to see any convincing evidence that they had such a material available.

.......you mean apart from the clearly depicted ( often in colour) Greek and Macedonian helmets?.....the technology for painting on metal/armour clearly existed in the World the Romans knew.

Having said that, I'd agree with you that it does not seem to have been a Roman practise....I can't recall any examples of painted helmets/armour in a Roman context offhand......

Wouldn't some kind of pitch be usable as a primer coat? I know this was an early used technique to paint on metal.

Greek and Macedonian? Not my period! :wink: Have you got any links for this? Particularly with those coloured illustrations.

Seriously, modern primer paints are specialised for the job. I was referring to the Roman army, of course and I cannot recall any evidence for painting helmets (or anything else made of metal) from that period. Given the Roman practice of painting everything in sight, if they could do it, I would guess that they would do it! Plenty of evidence for enamel work, of course - but that is a different matter.

Maybe something along the lines of a glue would work? There's another thread elsewhere here on RAT talking about a Roman version of 'superglue' - that might work as a primer, provided that it would harden and not remain sticky. However, I repeat that I know of no direct evidence for this. I would be very interested to know if there were such information!

How was coral stuck to a helmet?

I've also 'gone off on one' on this subject before: http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=10577

You should read Christian's post on the subject of paints: http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 0925#90925

Quote:They certainly had all the ingredients, Basic oil paint holds on metal no problem. I just finished a few experiments in that direction and ended up with a painted 12th century nasal helmet in heraldic colours. The paint is pigment (aniline ersatz cinnabar, chomium oxide ersatz verdigris and red ochre) in bleached linseed oil, no siccatives or other additives. It takes a long time to dry, but holds very firmly. I painted a steel bowl for testing purposes, and the only way we managed to seriously damage the paint was with the pointy end of a 400-g hammer. It stood up to rattan sticks, mallets, the flat end of a carpenter's hammer, and repeatedly being stomped on.

I know of at least one helmet found on the Italian peninsula that still holds traces of paint. It was dated to the fourth century BC, so it is very probably a Roman helmet, no?

The helmet is held in the British Museum apparently, but I don't know if it's on display.

I heard about this during a lecture at ICOM 07 in Amsterdam this year. The lecture was given by Panagiota Manti and David Watkinson. Both are attached to the Department of Archaeology and Conservation of Cardiff University.

I have an email adress so I could try to find out more about this helmet...

The lecturers also mentioned a silvered 6th century Illyrian helmet and a tinned Corinthian, but this isn't the appropriate section for these two

Vale,

For Caratacus:-

Here is an example of painted helmets in colour - here on the site! Go to;

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/templates/ ... nipost.gif

It is a fresco from the Hellenistic tomb of Lyson and Kallikles, c. 200B.C. - in Roman terms, the end of the War with Hannibal - the bronze helmet at left is clearly painted red and black ( but the comb, rim, cheekpieces and trim have been left bronze), the helmet at right appears to be iron ( cheekpieces and brow, painted yellow with red and black hoops). Two other painted helmets, similar to the left one are shown head-on on another wall with panoplies...

Paul, the link just goes to a little gif of the post icon at the start of every thread's post.