05-05-2014, 03:26 PM
Brian, Martin,
Although my original post making fun of the "pro leather" faction, so-to-speak, could have come across as offensive, I did point out that I was speaking in jest and did not mean to offend. I think my apology and response above were anything but "dogmatic."
As Dan mentioned above, provided with evidence to the contrary of his opinion, he changed his mind regarding the leather spolas - I would be happy to do so with loricae from the Roman period, were we to have any reason beyond so-and-so's interpretation of what a statue or mosaic looks like. Although I am absolutely an amateur, I have done as much research as possible into the subject, and I have found that all of the pro leather arguments basically amount to subjective interpretations of objects depicted in roman art, and nothing more. Once again, I will point out that absence of evidence proves nothing, and I am absolutely aware of this, for there cannot be any proof that such and such an item never existed, just an increased probability that it did not, as the body of evidence sans leather armor grows. This is just the sad reality of archaeology, and our collective interest in "getting it right" when it comes to historical reproductions.
That being said, I endeavor to keep an open mind, particularly because we really do not have much archaeologic evidence from the ancient world at all - as one historian put it, it's like we're peering in through the windows of Versailles, trying to recreate its interior splendors with mere glimpses from the outside.
Although my original post making fun of the "pro leather" faction, so-to-speak, could have come across as offensive, I did point out that I was speaking in jest and did not mean to offend. I think my apology and response above were anything but "dogmatic."
As Dan mentioned above, provided with evidence to the contrary of his opinion, he changed his mind regarding the leather spolas - I would be happy to do so with loricae from the Roman period, were we to have any reason beyond so-and-so's interpretation of what a statue or mosaic looks like. Although I am absolutely an amateur, I have done as much research as possible into the subject, and I have found that all of the pro leather arguments basically amount to subjective interpretations of objects depicted in roman art, and nothing more. Once again, I will point out that absence of evidence proves nothing, and I am absolutely aware of this, for there cannot be any proof that such and such an item never existed, just an increased probability that it did not, as the body of evidence sans leather armor grows. This is just the sad reality of archaeology, and our collective interest in "getting it right" when it comes to historical reproductions.
That being said, I endeavor to keep an open mind, particularly because we really do not have much archaeologic evidence from the ancient world at all - as one historian put it, it's like we're peering in through the windows of Versailles, trying to recreate its interior splendors with mere glimpses from the outside.
Alexander
