09-18-2011, 06:08 AM
In this we are of course forced to live in the unsatisfactory world of termini post quem and ante quem. However, it is these we must use to guide some of our judgements.
We know, for example, that 'Kalkriese' type fittings have been found dating to no later than 9BC at Dangstetten, so it is reasonable to state that some legionaries would have worn this type of armour for an unspecified time after 9BC but we cannot state that it was not worn before 9BC. We can say that there is, at the present time, no evidence for it being worn before this time however. Similarly, the latest finds of Kalkriese fittings can be dated to no later than AD75, meaning that it may still have been in service after this date but if so there is no evidence to prove it. Absence of these fittings from sites which began after this point argues in favour of the Kalkriese type dropping out of usage in favour of the Corbridge type before the end of the first century AD.
The Corbridge type overlaps with the Kalkriese type in the archaeological record, with a fitting from Wadden Hill being dated to between AD43 and 50 and a fitting from South Cadbury dated to around AD45. We know from the Corbridge hoard that this type remained in service into the AD130s and as we now know much later in at least some places. Unfortunately, many of the continental finds cannot be dated, but those which can seem to confirm the British dates, suggesting that in AD43, Corbridge type armour may have been very new.
This means that yes, our two soldiers could both have worn Corbridge type armour but it is likely that only the earlier man could have worn Kalkriese type.
Similarly, our earlier soldier could have worn a belt featuring type 'A' plates or with either figural or concentric circle type 'B' plates. At sites whose occupation began from the late AD60s on, only the latter of these types seems to be found, and even that seems to give way to plates with enamelled geometric designs by the end of the century. When the evidence for something stops being found in datable contexts, we cannot say with certainty that that item was not used after that point, but neither can we say that it was. In the case of belts though, seemingly the items most subject to fashion and change, we might tentatively conclude that it might not have been.
Regarding swords, AD71 is the latest possible date (if I recall correctly) for the Mainz type from Vindonissa, which itself appears to be the latest dated Mainz sword and scabbard presently known. The fact that it was accompanied by a belt which featured figural type 'B' plates however, might suggest that some of the earlier dates proposed for the deposition of this sword may be preferable to the date in the AD70s. If the sword was genuinely deposited in the AD70s then the belt plates would be by far the latest such plates so far found. However, with other plates of this type being datable to earlier contexts and the Vindonissa deposition date unclear it would be safer to assign the Vindonissa sword an earlier deposition date in the possible range of dates.
There are numerous examples of Mainz swords but it may be significant with reference to the Vindonissa example, that the Fulham sword is the only Mainz pattern sword known from Britain and the find site argues for deposition no later than the AD60s. This means that Mainz pattern swords appear to be absent from the archaeological record by the AD70s on the current evidence. There is also the scabbard from Porto Novo which can be considered here, which includes features common to both Mainz and Pompeii types but which also forms part of a group known from a number of points throughout the empire, some at least of which appear to have been associated with Pompeii swords. Even this group seems to be associated with contexts which end in the middle of the first century AD and are therefore the last apparent links to the Mainz type sword. The terminus ante quem for the Pompeii type is the capture and occupation of Hod Hill, meaning that it may have been in service by the time of the invasion of Britain but may well have been a new introduction at that time.
There is plenty of evidence for equipment remaining in service for long periods of time so the two men could conceivably have worn the same Corbridge cuirass, but how long can such items really be kept in serviceable condition? Similarly it is conceivable that both could have worn the same helmet but for one it would be new and the other it would be old and perhaps battered.
So yes, the two soldiers, separated by fifty years could possibly have worn the same types of body armour, helmet and sword, but only if the earlier man was equipped with the latest kit available in his time. The later man though, on the present evidence, could not have worn a Kalkriese cuirass, a Montefortino helmet or a Mainz type sword and scabbard, all of which could possibly have been worn by the earlier man. Given the apparently fashion conscious nature of belts, it is highly unlikely that the two men would have had the same type of belt fittings unless the earlier man had concentric circle plates and the later man still retained an unfashionable old belt which also featured concentric circle plates, while most of his smirking comrades flashed their fashionable enamelled plates.
"Outside of Britain and suchlike far-flung places, could these two legionaries not be practically indistinguishable?"
As military units were stationed in border regions and fought on the frontiers, the vast majority of the equipment so far found comes from such far flung places. We seem to see evidence in the archaeological record of great similarity of equipment in different places at the same times but at the same time, the evidence of such things as late Hellenistic segmental armour, and Agen and Port helmets argue in favour of equipment entering service in one particular area and then spreading to other geographical areas, meaning that a soldier in one place might look different to a soldier in another place but in a few years the new equipment might have spread to conceivably make them both the same. The differing evidence of caligae in different places might be much the same thing in reverse - the decline of an item being introduced and spreading out from there.
There is also evidence for soldiers of different units having distinctive styles of presentation, meaning that although soldiers of different geographic areas might share equipment they might still be visually distinctive.
Returning though to change and development, I would have to say that I am not a believer in carbon copy Roman soldiers. Within any unit there would be a great variety of equipment in use by different men, including some which was older and some which was newer. This means that although you could conceivably have two individual soldiers who were separated by fifty years but, as already discussed, seemed to be virtually identically equipped, this would not be possible when comparing a group of soldiers with another group, even from the same unit, fifty years later. Some men in the earlier group would be using items which had fallen out of use by the time of the later group, whilst some man in the later group would be using items which had been introduced since the time of the earlier group. Two individuals fifty years apart might look almost the same, but certainly not two groups of soldiers.
Crispvs
We know, for example, that 'Kalkriese' type fittings have been found dating to no later than 9BC at Dangstetten, so it is reasonable to state that some legionaries would have worn this type of armour for an unspecified time after 9BC but we cannot state that it was not worn before 9BC. We can say that there is, at the present time, no evidence for it being worn before this time however. Similarly, the latest finds of Kalkriese fittings can be dated to no later than AD75, meaning that it may still have been in service after this date but if so there is no evidence to prove it. Absence of these fittings from sites which began after this point argues in favour of the Kalkriese type dropping out of usage in favour of the Corbridge type before the end of the first century AD.
The Corbridge type overlaps with the Kalkriese type in the archaeological record, with a fitting from Wadden Hill being dated to between AD43 and 50 and a fitting from South Cadbury dated to around AD45. We know from the Corbridge hoard that this type remained in service into the AD130s and as we now know much later in at least some places. Unfortunately, many of the continental finds cannot be dated, but those which can seem to confirm the British dates, suggesting that in AD43, Corbridge type armour may have been very new.
This means that yes, our two soldiers could both have worn Corbridge type armour but it is likely that only the earlier man could have worn Kalkriese type.
Similarly, our earlier soldier could have worn a belt featuring type 'A' plates or with either figural or concentric circle type 'B' plates. At sites whose occupation began from the late AD60s on, only the latter of these types seems to be found, and even that seems to give way to plates with enamelled geometric designs by the end of the century. When the evidence for something stops being found in datable contexts, we cannot say with certainty that that item was not used after that point, but neither can we say that it was. In the case of belts though, seemingly the items most subject to fashion and change, we might tentatively conclude that it might not have been.
Regarding swords, AD71 is the latest possible date (if I recall correctly) for the Mainz type from Vindonissa, which itself appears to be the latest dated Mainz sword and scabbard presently known. The fact that it was accompanied by a belt which featured figural type 'B' plates however, might suggest that some of the earlier dates proposed for the deposition of this sword may be preferable to the date in the AD70s. If the sword was genuinely deposited in the AD70s then the belt plates would be by far the latest such plates so far found. However, with other plates of this type being datable to earlier contexts and the Vindonissa deposition date unclear it would be safer to assign the Vindonissa sword an earlier deposition date in the possible range of dates.
There are numerous examples of Mainz swords but it may be significant with reference to the Vindonissa example, that the Fulham sword is the only Mainz pattern sword known from Britain and the find site argues for deposition no later than the AD60s. This means that Mainz pattern swords appear to be absent from the archaeological record by the AD70s on the current evidence. There is also the scabbard from Porto Novo which can be considered here, which includes features common to both Mainz and Pompeii types but which also forms part of a group known from a number of points throughout the empire, some at least of which appear to have been associated with Pompeii swords. Even this group seems to be associated with contexts which end in the middle of the first century AD and are therefore the last apparent links to the Mainz type sword. The terminus ante quem for the Pompeii type is the capture and occupation of Hod Hill, meaning that it may have been in service by the time of the invasion of Britain but may well have been a new introduction at that time.
There is plenty of evidence for equipment remaining in service for long periods of time so the two men could conceivably have worn the same Corbridge cuirass, but how long can such items really be kept in serviceable condition? Similarly it is conceivable that both could have worn the same helmet but for one it would be new and the other it would be old and perhaps battered.
So yes, the two soldiers, separated by fifty years could possibly have worn the same types of body armour, helmet and sword, but only if the earlier man was equipped with the latest kit available in his time. The later man though, on the present evidence, could not have worn a Kalkriese cuirass, a Montefortino helmet or a Mainz type sword and scabbard, all of which could possibly have been worn by the earlier man. Given the apparently fashion conscious nature of belts, it is highly unlikely that the two men would have had the same type of belt fittings unless the earlier man had concentric circle plates and the later man still retained an unfashionable old belt which also featured concentric circle plates, while most of his smirking comrades flashed their fashionable enamelled plates.
"Outside of Britain and suchlike far-flung places, could these two legionaries not be practically indistinguishable?"
As military units were stationed in border regions and fought on the frontiers, the vast majority of the equipment so far found comes from such far flung places. We seem to see evidence in the archaeological record of great similarity of equipment in different places at the same times but at the same time, the evidence of such things as late Hellenistic segmental armour, and Agen and Port helmets argue in favour of equipment entering service in one particular area and then spreading to other geographical areas, meaning that a soldier in one place might look different to a soldier in another place but in a few years the new equipment might have spread to conceivably make them both the same. The differing evidence of caligae in different places might be much the same thing in reverse - the decline of an item being introduced and spreading out from there.
There is also evidence for soldiers of different units having distinctive styles of presentation, meaning that although soldiers of different geographic areas might share equipment they might still be visually distinctive.
Returning though to change and development, I would have to say that I am not a believer in carbon copy Roman soldiers. Within any unit there would be a great variety of equipment in use by different men, including some which was older and some which was newer. This means that although you could conceivably have two individual soldiers who were separated by fifty years but, as already discussed, seemed to be virtually identically equipped, this would not be possible when comparing a group of soldiers with another group, even from the same unit, fifty years later. Some men in the earlier group would be using items which had fallen out of use by the time of the later group, whilst some man in the later group would be using items which had been introduced since the time of the earlier group. Two individuals fifty years apart might look almost the same, but certainly not two groups of soldiers.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
