05-29-2009, 07:24 AM
First: Yes, they did know how to temper steel.
Ah, but you misunderstand, Campbell. I have you still! :wink: I attempted to humorously - as I wrote - to illustrate the eagerness our minds jump to link two ideas that resemble one another, even though it is - in Mickey's case - completely impossible that those two ideas can be contemporary, in response to the statement But if it isn't a crupellarius, what in the world is it? . I have to point out that your 1) argument in itself is flawed. The figure might depict a heavily armoured man. It might also depict something else. Your preconceptions are forcing it into looking like someone armoured in steel bands: you are equating an interpretation of the figure as a heavily armoured man with an assumption that the figure can, a priori , be regarded as a figure of a heavily armoured man. See below for my wife's take on it when I showed it to her and said it might depict an armoured man.
The arguments for why one should be careful with labeling the statue as a crupellarius have already been presented. It is one written source that we already know can be somewhat unreliable, and one statue.
Let's look at it again:
*We have Tacitus mention of unmanageable and clumsy (my interpretation) armoured gladiators amongst the Aedui, seemingly mentioned because they were a curious case.
*We have the figure, unearthed at Versigny, whose context is uncertain (at least to me; I have never read Picard's article and I cannot recall if Junkelmann lists spesific find site and dating). It is clearly unarmed (although I cannot see if anything should indicate that it might have had attached weapons) and has some bands here and there on the body and limbs and a head that might be interpreted as armour, although it is hardly what you'd call an attempt at realistic representation.
Now, I don't know if that is Versigny-on the Oisne or Versigny-on-the-Aisne, but neither are in the territories of the Aedui as we know of them as of 21 AD(or at least as I know them). Thus, the geographical link is slightly tenous. We thus have a single bronze statue (I can't find any dating of it, which complicates things further) that could represent a lot of things, linked to a single textual reference that doesn't actually describe in any detail.
There might be more evidence at large here. Pro the argument could be: Was it discovered as part of a set of bronze figures representing different gladiators? Was it found in a gladiatoral school or arena building? Was it found in a context that ties it closely to the events of AD21? Are there separate parts of weapons and/or shields associated with it? Con the argument could be: Is it dated much earlier or later than 21AD? Is it a loose find? Was it found in a collection of votive bronze figures or other figures of religious significanse?
The link - without further evidence being presented - it simply too tenous. It cannot be dismissed out of hand, but that applies to a great deal of wild theories. A danish bog body discovered at Haraldskær in 1835 was identified by a historian as "Queen Gunnhild", that according to folklore was murdered by King Harald Bluetooth in the late viking period. It took a mere ten years before this naive identification was dismissed by other historians (Gunnhild died, old, on the Orkneys, but the availability of sources in the 1800s was not what it is today and the original historian did not have those records), but in the meantime the body had been buried in St.Nikolai's church. Later, she has been de-interred and dated to 500 BC. But the ground theory was as good as the statue one is:
*They had the body, that seemed to have been murdered and hidden (of course, she had been sacrificed).
*They had the folklore, which indicated that Queen Gunnhild had been murdered in the area by King Harald.
*They had the historical record, which told of Queen Gunnhild and King Harald.
Que jump to conclusions based on little evidence but a perceived relationship. If we had not had single passage about Gunhild dying on the Orkneys in The Saga of Eirik's sons (as I recall it), it would not have been falsified until carbon dating. She is still called "Queen Gunnhild" (jokingly) It wouldn't be the first time folklore was used in archeology - sometimes successfully. A local legend in Mølledalen, Buskerud told of the "knight's jump" where according to history a knight and his horse had fallen to their deaths. Upon excavating the foot of the cliff, archaeologists found (also in the 1800s) fragments of a full suite of maille armour - a complete set of maille hose, a maille gorget, and part of an arm. They are dated to the early 15th century (Vike, Vegard. A metallographical analysis of ring mail material at the Oldsaksamlingen in Oslo. University of Oslo, 2000: http://folk.uio.no/vegardav/brynje/Ring ... Gustafsson ).pdf) - in this case, the local legend has a kernel of truth, some 400 years after the knight fell to his death or otherwise ended up in the rock pile.
"Queen Gunnhild" is often used in training modern archaeologists in scandinavia as an example of over-enthusiastic identification of unearthed artifacts with the historical record, and especially singular passages in the historical record. We don't do that anymore unless we are really sure and have lots of supporting evidence if we want to keep our academic reputation. While what you have right there and then might make it seem useful, we see the chain of argumentation in the Versigny case moving from speculation to certainty, musings to reconstruction, and eventually to circular argumentation. Of course it might be a crupellarius. It might equally well be a representation of a man with a holy bucket (as in "holy rusted metal, batman", not The Sacred Bucket) on his head. When I showed it to my wife recently and didn't mention anything except that it might be an armoured man, she said "it looks like someone wearing your vápntreiyu (textile armour, long-sleeved aketon).
Notice how (other) preconceptions already have crept in with the people who "reconstructed" the armour based on the statue:
![[Image: crupellarius.jpg]](http://www.durolitum.co.uk/images/crupellarius.jpg)
Besides the l.seg. (in which they excuseably are basing themselves of others' interpretations) - that helmet is a high medieval barrel helmet with a bump fastened to the front. "It sort of looks like one, after all".
Why am I harping on about this? Because it is vitally important for the serious reenactor. I have been close to giving up on living history several times when people for the umpteenth time show up with something "reconstructed" from a single image, have incorporated flaws from that image that are absent in other images, and argue heatedly that it is "good". I've had people show up with equipment reconstructed from a single source of uncertain providence. Our rule of thumb for clothing is: at least three separate pictoral sources, preferably geographically not too separated, and preferably also based on archaeological finds and/or written sources, if these are available. That tends to mean half our tunics have arm patterns based on either the Kragelund or Moselund tunics (as they are widely available), but that is better than basing them on a single church illumination that the maker has misunderstood.
Ah, but you misunderstand, Campbell. I have you still! :wink: I attempted to humorously - as I wrote - to illustrate the eagerness our minds jump to link two ideas that resemble one another, even though it is - in Mickey's case - completely impossible that those two ideas can be contemporary, in response to the statement But if it isn't a crupellarius, what in the world is it? . I have to point out that your 1) argument in itself is flawed. The figure might depict a heavily armoured man. It might also depict something else. Your preconceptions are forcing it into looking like someone armoured in steel bands: you are equating an interpretation of the figure as a heavily armoured man with an assumption that the figure can, a priori , be regarded as a figure of a heavily armoured man. See below for my wife's take on it when I showed it to her and said it might depict an armoured man.
The arguments for why one should be careful with labeling the statue as a crupellarius have already been presented. It is one written source that we already know can be somewhat unreliable, and one statue.
Let's look at it again:
*We have Tacitus mention of unmanageable and clumsy (my interpretation) armoured gladiators amongst the Aedui, seemingly mentioned because they were a curious case.
*We have the figure, unearthed at Versigny, whose context is uncertain (at least to me; I have never read Picard's article and I cannot recall if Junkelmann lists spesific find site and dating). It is clearly unarmed (although I cannot see if anything should indicate that it might have had attached weapons) and has some bands here and there on the body and limbs and a head that might be interpreted as armour, although it is hardly what you'd call an attempt at realistic representation.
Now, I don't know if that is Versigny-on the Oisne or Versigny-on-the-Aisne, but neither are in the territories of the Aedui as we know of them as of 21 AD(or at least as I know them). Thus, the geographical link is slightly tenous. We thus have a single bronze statue (I can't find any dating of it, which complicates things further) that could represent a lot of things, linked to a single textual reference that doesn't actually describe in any detail.
There might be more evidence at large here. Pro the argument could be: Was it discovered as part of a set of bronze figures representing different gladiators? Was it found in a gladiatoral school or arena building? Was it found in a context that ties it closely to the events of AD21? Are there separate parts of weapons and/or shields associated with it? Con the argument could be: Is it dated much earlier or later than 21AD? Is it a loose find? Was it found in a collection of votive bronze figures or other figures of religious significanse?
The link - without further evidence being presented - it simply too tenous. It cannot be dismissed out of hand, but that applies to a great deal of wild theories. A danish bog body discovered at Haraldskær in 1835 was identified by a historian as "Queen Gunnhild", that according to folklore was murdered by King Harald Bluetooth in the late viking period. It took a mere ten years before this naive identification was dismissed by other historians (Gunnhild died, old, on the Orkneys, but the availability of sources in the 1800s was not what it is today and the original historian did not have those records), but in the meantime the body had been buried in St.Nikolai's church. Later, she has been de-interred and dated to 500 BC. But the ground theory was as good as the statue one is:
*They had the body, that seemed to have been murdered and hidden (of course, she had been sacrificed).
*They had the folklore, which indicated that Queen Gunnhild had been murdered in the area by King Harald.
*They had the historical record, which told of Queen Gunnhild and King Harald.
Que jump to conclusions based on little evidence but a perceived relationship. If we had not had single passage about Gunhild dying on the Orkneys in The Saga of Eirik's sons (as I recall it), it would not have been falsified until carbon dating. She is still called "Queen Gunnhild" (jokingly) It wouldn't be the first time folklore was used in archeology - sometimes successfully. A local legend in Mølledalen, Buskerud told of the "knight's jump" where according to history a knight and his horse had fallen to their deaths. Upon excavating the foot of the cliff, archaeologists found (also in the 1800s) fragments of a full suite of maille armour - a complete set of maille hose, a maille gorget, and part of an arm. They are dated to the early 15th century (Vike, Vegard. A metallographical analysis of ring mail material at the Oldsaksamlingen in Oslo. University of Oslo, 2000: http://folk.uio.no/vegardav/brynje/Ring ... Gustafsson ).pdf) - in this case, the local legend has a kernel of truth, some 400 years after the knight fell to his death or otherwise ended up in the rock pile.
"Queen Gunnhild" is often used in training modern archaeologists in scandinavia as an example of over-enthusiastic identification of unearthed artifacts with the historical record, and especially singular passages in the historical record. We don't do that anymore unless we are really sure and have lots of supporting evidence if we want to keep our academic reputation. While what you have right there and then might make it seem useful, we see the chain of argumentation in the Versigny case moving from speculation to certainty, musings to reconstruction, and eventually to circular argumentation. Of course it might be a crupellarius. It might equally well be a representation of a man with a holy bucket (as in "holy rusted metal, batman", not The Sacred Bucket) on his head. When I showed it to my wife recently and didn't mention anything except that it might be an armoured man, she said "it looks like someone wearing your vápntreiyu (textile armour, long-sleeved aketon).
Notice how (other) preconceptions already have crept in with the people who "reconstructed" the armour based on the statue:
Besides the l.seg. (in which they excuseably are basing themselves of others' interpretations) - that helmet is a high medieval barrel helmet with a bump fastened to the front. "It sort of looks like one, after all".
Why am I harping on about this? Because it is vitally important for the serious reenactor. I have been close to giving up on living history several times when people for the umpteenth time show up with something "reconstructed" from a single image, have incorporated flaws from that image that are absent in other images, and argue heatedly that it is "good". I've had people show up with equipment reconstructed from a single source of uncertain providence. Our rule of thumb for clothing is: at least three separate pictoral sources, preferably geographically not too separated, and preferably also based on archaeological finds and/or written sources, if these are available. That tends to mean half our tunics have arm patterns based on either the Kragelund or Moselund tunics (as they are widely available), but that is better than basing them on a single church illumination that the maker has misunderstood.
