RomanArmyTalk
AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion - Printable Version

+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+---- Forum: Hasta Pura (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=30)
+---- Thread: AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion (/showthread.php?tid=9997)

Pages: 1 2

Re: AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion - caiusbeerquitius - 08-01-2007

Yes, I took this out of the presentation thread, for in fact it is not allowed to post in the presentation threads unless you are the nominee.

Re: AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion - Gaius Julius Caesar - 08-01-2007

Quote:Yes, I took this out of the presentation thread, for in fact it is not allowed to post in the presentation threads unless you are the nominee.

OK 8)

Re: AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion - tlclark - 08-01-2007

My two asses:

Caius is right, there are terms and conventions in standard use in archaeological circles. If the terms are to have any meaning we have to defend their meaning diligently.

However, if the goal is to sponsor more accurate pieces of armor, and more accurate re-enacting than the following items (or impressions that include them) cannot ever rationally be considered for the Hasta Pura on the grounds of incomplete/inconclusive data:

Lorica Musculata
subarmalis
pteruges
Focale
The leather satchel
braccae/Feminalia
Several aspects of segmentata, hamata
etc. etc. etc.

I'm sure others could add others.

In fact, if you wanted to, you could nitpick any impression...
We all have to accept conjecture at some point.

And then there are all the difficulties of accidental survivals. Are the objects for which we have the most evidence atypical or anomalous? The art is sometimes at such variance with the evidence that we have to run on one of two assumptions. Either the art is untrustworthy, or the example is anomalous. If it's anomalous what's the virtue of a hasta pura? And everyone here knows my opinions on this matter.

It's the age old dilemna of western epistemology. You base knowledge not merely on what can be known, but on what you can demonstrate. But given an imperfect data set, there are many things which may be true, but can not be demonstrated.

Fortunately archaeology is not a hard science and we have to conjecture or we'd all sit around doing nothing.

I understand the need to make the hasta pura an award for specific reproductions of existing artifacts.

I think that a seperate award for the best reasonable conjecture of a specific item, holding to rules of what can be demonstrated.

This attic explicit and conscientiously tries to emulate the best examples of Roman iconology. Can it be verified? No. but then a lot of stuff simply can't be verified.

I think another award is warranted, but then, to make that worth any more than a "HEY THAT'S COOL!" award, there need to be rules on what will and will not be acceptable. I suppose that that's why there isn't an award like this already. It relies too much on judgment, whereas if the object looks like the original, it looks like the original, making an hasta pura so much easier to award.

Still with the expertise on this board, it seems a plausible alternative.

Re: AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion - Caballo - 08-01-2007

I think the leather satchel would qualify because of the Commachio finds beautifully rebuilt (with patient instructions) by Martin M? Not much conjecture needed there- just hard work and craftsmanship?

Re: AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion - Marcus Mummius - 08-01-2007

Quote:And then there are all the difficulties of accidental survivals. Are the objects for which we have the most evidence atypical or anomalous? The art is sometimes at such variance with the evidence that we have to run on one of two assumptions. Either the art is untrustworthy, or the example is anomalous. If it's anomalous what's the virtue of a hasta pura? And everyone here knows my opinions on this matter.

The point is that it would still be a reconstruction of something we are 100% sure existed.

An extra award for things that are faithfully based on any other source than archaeological sources would be a good idea. But like you said, it should follow these other sources closely.

Re: AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion - Tarbicus - 08-01-2007

Quote:My two asses
You should see a doctor about that.

Re: AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion - tlclark - 08-01-2007

Quote:
tlclark:1n7mw6dk Wrote:My two asses
You should see a doctor about that.

I need an extra one for the spank-o-matic. Big Grin

Re: AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion - Matt Lukes - 08-02-2007

Now is that like The Man with Three Buttocks? Or is it a fully 4-Cheeker? :lol:

Re: AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion - Theodosius the Great - 08-04-2007

Just to show everyone what a Republican Attic looks like :

[Image: attic_samnite.jpg]

To me it looks like an ancestor to the ones depicted on much later friezes.

~Theo

Re: AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion - Celtic505 - 12-03-2007

I'm gonna go with the 4 cheeks