10-25-2007, 01:25 AM
Antonius,
The Newstead piece unlike the Augsburg piece is a fragment with some scales and mostly mail. It is a relatively small sample. The Augsburg piece on the other hand is more complete since the size of it is quite large. There were also small fragments of other plumata found. They were all primarly made of copper alloy (both mail and scale) while I believe the Usk piece is all of iron.
One thing that they all have in common is that generally their scales are quite small as are the mail rings. Each sample found, has rings and scales of the approximate same size. Also all the fragments found had the same mode of construction with respect to how the garment was assembled. Since there is a consistency, it make the issue less hypothetical.
For the most part, any reconstruction, using the evidence avaible, has an element of hypothesis. Look at Musculata armor. No Roman sample has ever been found. Yet people reconstruct them solely based on Greek finds and Roman sculpture. We do not even know what the roman materials for such armors are. At least for plumata, squmata, hamata, and segmentata, there is evidence as to the materials making it way less hypothetical.
The same is for the "plumata" and squamata. Generally one cannot categorically say that every sculpture that has scale armor is "plumata" nor can it be said that it is squamata. Thus, like in the musculata case, we use scale armor sculpture to ascertain a particular design that could have belonged to a "plumata" or squamata. Except that in the scale armor case, we have actual finds to prove their construction materials and approximate method of construction.
The design therefore, becomes somewhat hypothetical since there is evidence for its appearence and actual evidence proving its existence.
The same cannot be said for musculata strictly regarding roman armor
Paolo
The Newstead piece unlike the Augsburg piece is a fragment with some scales and mostly mail. It is a relatively small sample. The Augsburg piece on the other hand is more complete since the size of it is quite large. There were also small fragments of other plumata found. They were all primarly made of copper alloy (both mail and scale) while I believe the Usk piece is all of iron.
One thing that they all have in common is that generally their scales are quite small as are the mail rings. Each sample found, has rings and scales of the approximate same size. Also all the fragments found had the same mode of construction with respect to how the garment was assembled. Since there is a consistency, it make the issue less hypothetical.
For the most part, any reconstruction, using the evidence avaible, has an element of hypothesis. Look at Musculata armor. No Roman sample has ever been found. Yet people reconstruct them solely based on Greek finds and Roman sculpture. We do not even know what the roman materials for such armors are. At least for plumata, squmata, hamata, and segmentata, there is evidence as to the materials making it way less hypothetical.
The same is for the "plumata" and squamata. Generally one cannot categorically say that every sculpture that has scale armor is "plumata" nor can it be said that it is squamata. Thus, like in the musculata case, we use scale armor sculpture to ascertain a particular design that could have belonged to a "plumata" or squamata. Except that in the scale armor case, we have actual finds to prove their construction materials and approximate method of construction.
The design therefore, becomes somewhat hypothetical since there is evidence for its appearence and actual evidence proving its existence.
The same cannot be said for musculata strictly regarding roman armor
Paolo
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Paolo
