Roman Full Plate Armor?

[D B Campbell]

Ah, but you misunderstand, Campbell. I have you still! :wink:

Not at all, Endre. I appreciated your humour, but it conceals an important misconception.

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. ... 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.

Here we must part company, my friend, for I believe that it is entirely reasonable to assume that the figure depicts a heavily armoured man. You are seeking a level of assurance that (in my opinion) is entirely unreasonable in the field of archaeology. As archaeologists, we deal in "reasonable inference", and hardly ever in "certainty".

In short, if you do not believe that the figure is intended to represent a heavily-armoured man, the onus is upon you to provide an alternative interpretation. If your alternative interpretation is "We cannot possibly know what it represents", then we may as well all go home.

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.

Agreed. Which is why I wrote:
"Ergo, our statuette might be a crupellarius, or it might not be a crupellarius, but we can't write it off as unintelligible."
(Incidentally, I believe that the growing trend to label Tacitus as "somewhat unreliable" is exaggerated; I'd prefer to describe him as "usually reliable".)

... 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.

We are still in agreement.
"Ergo, our statuette might be a crupellarius, or it might not be a crupellarius, but we can't write it off as unintelligible."

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?

We are still in agreement. In an ideal world, this kind of supporting evidence would be the icing on the cake.
But the absence of such supporting evidence does not absolve us from the task of interpretation. "... we can't write it off as unintelligible."

The link - without further evidence being presented - it simply too tenous.

Tenuous, agreed. But too tenuous for serious consideration? (We're archaeologists, not nuclear physicists! )

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.

Right there -- there's your logical fallacy. No self-respecting historical archaeologist should rely on folklore (in my humble opinion).

... 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.

Here we briefly part company again, my friend, for I don't accept that it is equally likely that it's a man with a holy bucket on his head. my position is this:
"... our statuette might be a crupellarius, or it might not be a crupellarius, but we can't write it off as unintelligible."
You can accuse me of moving from speculation to reconstruction, but not to certainty, and definitely not to circular argumentation. :wink:

Why am I harping on about this? Because it is vitally important for the serious reenactor. ... 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.

This is experimental archaeology in action, ... provided people are willing to admit that, although the result may be success, it could equally be failure. Think of the long process of illuminating the workings of "lorica segmentata". With your hard-line approach, it would never have got off the ground!

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.

I appreciate your position, Endre. I really do. But it is only appropriate in a Living History context, where people expect some degree of probability. And entirely inappropriate in Experimental Archaeology, as we try to make sense of something peculiar.

Ah, but you misunderstand, Campbell. I have you still! :wink:

I don't think I do. And I don't think you do! :wink: