New CLASSIS-soldier (!!) tombstone discovered in Italy

[Praefectusclassis]

The text says it's an optio, so sorry, no officer. And I had an archaeology prof looking over my shoulder today, who immediately said 'Mid 1st C', so I think the dating is accurate. I would really like to see it for real though...

[Tasciavanous]

I am wondering about the cuirass consensus, when I first saw this tombstone that's what I thought.
But then I looked at Jim's enhanced image and I started to wonder if this chap might not be wearing a mail shirt, as all the Auxillia on Trajan's column seem to have rather well developed musculature showing through their shirts I was wondering if this might not be some kind of convention to emphasize how all strapping all Roman soldiers are?
As for the contentious strap over his shoulder I think it looks like a wide baldrick but the style and rest of his equipment looks very 1stC :?

[Tarbicus]

His hand rests on the hilt of his sword, in the eternal "proud swordsman" stance, which makes te sword stick out almost horizontally behind, which explains why it's not seen.

I agree with that, on the face of it, which could explain the horizontal lines beyond as the scabbard with (at those times) poor perspective forshortening, (note the shape of the handguard behind his hand where the baldric meets it) with the bottom of his cloak below that. I.e., the big round thing in his left hand could be the top of the pommel of his gladius pointing towards us.

Bear in mind that the enhanced version is still very poor and I really really want to see a higher res version :roll:

Cheers.

[Caballo]

Here is a picture of the whole stone
Jasper- your comments on the Latin inscription?

The report in Italian is at http://www.archeobo.arti.beniculturali. ... classe.htm to my (very) limited Italian, the Roman hideout piece looks like a part translation?

I'm also not convinced that he is holding a shield behind him- to my mind it is the continuation of an oval surrounding the figure?

Cheers

Britannicus

[aitor iriarte]

No scales on the muscled cuirass, guys!
I can only see the usual two upper rows of rounded pterugae... 8)

Aitor

[Praefectusclassis]

Bigger picture of the soldier too.

[Caballo]

Jasper,

Can you help me with the inscription?

Cheers

Britannicus

[Praefectusclassis]

The inscription:
I have some problems with the first part of the inscription.
F(E?) Dei(?) ...
Montano ...N IIX
Capito Opt(io) de Liburna
Aurata Cocnaus heres f(ecit).
From the looks of it, the first part seems to invoke the gods, but not the usual (and later) Dis Manibus. N IIX could be Annis IIX, but that is strange. You wouldn't expect the name to be around the number of years he lived. So it could be part of the name. But it does lóók like a number...
It seems like the text is Montanus Capito, Optio of the Liburna Aurata. Cocneus, his heir, made (this tombstone).

[Uwe Bahr]

Jasper,

So it could be part of the name. But it does lóók like a number...

surely a number, there is a horizontal line just visible above the last 'I' from 'IIX'. And I think 'N' and 'I' are pulled together in the designation of the ship type, so it reads 'LIBURNIA'

Greets - Uwe

[Tarbicus]

Thanks for the larger photo Jasper. Funnily enough, is it possible the weighted pilum is being held behind an optio's staff, hence the 2 spheres? There's another post-processed image here from Jasper's latest posted image (350k jpeg):
[url:2yus7v0m]http://hometown.aol.co.uk/Tarbicus/classis_tombstone3.jpg[/url]

Cheers.

[Daniel S Peterson]

I would agree with Aitor tht this is clearly a smooth muscle cuirass, but this should come to no surprise. There are many honest depictions of Roman soldiers below the rank of centurion throughout the Imperial Roman era, including provincial contexts, of aparently common soldiers wearing muscle cuirasses. From the evidence, it is likely that if any soldier wanted to buy a muscle cuirass as his preferred armor he could do so. It is erroneous to assume this was an inferior armor as well. In fact, when armor making was at its apex in the 16th century, the one piece metal breast and back plate was "standard equipment" in the finest armors.

The problem is that there seems to be one school of archaeologists who seem to think that if they do not find an original artifact, the item depicted cannot have existed. In one case, an achaeologist has actually "redrawn" a monument in which a soldier clearly wears a muscle cuirass, complete with sculpted naval, and turned it into a lorica hamata! Actually, in the time when it was common to bury warriors with their armor, metal muscle cuirasses are commonly found. During the imperial period when this practice was discontinued, they are not found. Why are they not found in imperial contexts like trash pits and wells when forts were abandoned? Probably because the muscle cuirass was an expensive, custom made piece of equipment, usually made of expensive cupric alloy. Something like that is not simply thrown away, like a beat up iron helmet, often also tripped of is cupric alloy fittings before being thrown away.

Another reason why we have found mo muscle cuirasses of the imperial period is that they may have indeed been made of (gasp) leather. Or I should say, formed rawhide, or oil-boiled leather. We know leather armor was used througout history, and tests, as those done in the Royal Armories have consclusively proven it could be just as effective a defense as metal.

It may be no coincidence that most of the "marines" in the famous "crocodile ship" relief are wearing muscle cuirasses. Metal body armor is a death sentence for marines in naval combat should they fall overboard. A rawhide cuirass, on the contrary might actually keep the wearer afloat for just enough time to remove it.

But here we have another problem. Not only is there great opposition to leather product muscle cuirasses by the archaeologists who will never excavate them, but also from the layperson Roman enthusiasts, who "know just enough to be dangerous" and insist that anything ever used in a "hollywood" movie cannot possibly be authentic -- even on those rare occassions when hollywood does "get it right".

Dan

[Uwe Bahr]

Dan,

if You should not know it yet, I highly recommend You Travis Lee Clark's website about the Roman lorica Musculata:

[url:3qr8uunm]http://astro.temple.edu/%7Etlclark/lorica/musculata.htm[/url]

It has many photos about muscle cuirasses from Roman statues that are full with details and show seams and hinges. After his theory there must at least many of the ancient Roman cuirasses have been made of leather, at least partly. A remarkable example is the Augustus statue from Prima Porta, that seems to have been tied togehter with a loop directly under the shoulder cave.

Greets - Uwe

[Ebusitanus]

Dan, what would be your personal take on Arsdimicandi over their lather segmentatas, one use for red on tunics, etc..?

http://www.arsdimicandi.net/ad_1_00009c.htm

[Johnny Shumate]

Here is a quick sketch.
I just can't make out what the thing is attached to his baldric.
Johnny

[Praefectusclassis]

And I think 'N' and 'I' are pulled together in the designation of the ship type, so it reads 'LIBURNIA'

Doesn't look like it to me. It wouldn't make sense either. The boat is called a Liburna, not liburnia.