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

[Daniel S Peterson]

Jim, "Parchment" can refer to the "sheepskin" used for writing, but it can equally refer to the "Parchment" that covers a cricket bat. This parchment is indeed a kind of rawhide that adds great strength to the wood cricket bat, just as the "parchment" rawhide added strength to Roman shields. I see this firsthand when comparing the longetivity of modern shields used in steel fighting demos. Rawhide covered shields are much stronger and last far longer. I have little doubt that all references to "leather" on Roman shields actually refers to rawhide. Normal leather has very little defensive value compared to rawhide.

I suppose any of our British contributors can confirm if the rawhide sewn over cricket bats is called "parchment". I do know the Indians call it that.

I also suspect that the majority of early imperial legionary shields had the wing motiffs embossed in the rawhide exactly like the relief decoration in some of the earliest surviving medieval shields.

[Uwe Bahr]

Hans wrote:

The number IIX is also an uncommon way to describe 8 (VIII), but not impossible. Could it really not be anything else?

My impression is that this way (IIX) to describe 8 is more common than our (modern?) way (VIII) - perhaps the most well-known example is the famous grave stone of Marcus Caelius who died in the Varian war and is referred as belonging to legio XIIX (instead of XVIII). The same way is with the number 4 - it may be only an impression, but I think I saw mostly IIII instead of IV. Sorry for that number salad - just my thoughts.

Greets - Uwe

[Tarbicus]

...it can equally refer to the "Parchment" that covers a cricket bat....

Hi Dan,

If you are talking about 'facing' a cricket bat, then I would need to look into that, as modern facing materials can be a very flexible composite polyurethane film rolled off a tube (like shrinkwrap), and I see just as much reason for the 'parchment' on a cricket bat to have more elastic properties than stiffened rawhide.

Modern anti-ballistic materials have a similar principal of 'give' in layers of shock absorbing materials, and the Roman army, being full of combat experienced experts, may well have understood this principal. The important thing is it does not split when hit with high impact forces, and softer parchment that has been bonded (hence reinforced over its area) onto the sinew-laden glue may just be okay to take a violent hit without splitting and still retain some 'bounce' properties. However, stiff rawhide being extremely resilient and used as shield edging, I see the point very well. The difference is that solid rawhide at the edge of a scutum is sewn into place, which leaves some spring over its area when hit at high impact. However, the face of a shield is glued across the entire area of its surface, which could mean the rawhide loses its spring, and is left with little 'bounce', if any, which could cause the shock of the blow to continue through the shield and cause more damage. That is actually where the felt facing you have talked about has credence, and stiff rawhide glued into place would be like the opposite of felt.

The other thing is that reports indicate that the edging of the Dura scutum was specifically rawhide, whereas the face was leather or parchment. Why would there be a difference in the description? If anyone can correct me here, please do. I'm just trying to learn.

I'm just trying to decide what to cover my bare scutum with :wink: and I'm 50/50 on using parchment or rawhide.

Thanks.

[drsrob]

Am I the only one who can see that the iron shaft of the 'pilum' doesn't line up with the balls at the top of the 'possible optio's staff', and could just as easily be a part of the surround? The centre line of the 'pilum' shaft doesn't even meet the centre line of the balls. Everyone's praising the artist for his great detail, etc, but then he goes and sculpts a bent/used pilum? :? I don't buy it yet, nor do I buy the muscled cuirass. If the artist could sculpt a very bent pilum, he could very well sculpt a belly button into what was to be painted hamata. Notice also that the blatantly obvious line of the pectoral continues in a line to midway down the upper arm, not in a vertical one to the shoulder, which is more in keeping with the line of squamata shoulder pieces. Note also that the lappets seem to continue onto the upper chest, which is more in keeping with squamata. I'm sorry, but when you compare this tombstone with the Camomile Street Soldier, this artist just isn't anywhere near as good.

[...]
Surely the simple rule was; "Try not to fall off the ship!"

Cheers.

A remarkable truth is that most sailors can't swim, so why bother with trying to keep afloat.
I agree with you on the armour not being a muscle cuiras. The 'pilum' however is another matter; the fact that it is crooked is hardly significant given the standard of execution of the sculpture.

[Antonius Lucretius]

Until recently numerous fishermen, especially those opeating in northern seas couldn't swin, and wouldn't want to learn since in case of a wreck it usually meant only a slower death.
If a later naval battle like Lepanto can be an example, the soldiers wore regular steel armour.
...And I still think that guy wears a regular muscle cuirass with rouind lappets and pteryges at the arms and hem. The "scales" on the shoulder are the lappets/pteryges in a very simplified form.
Wasn't really a good sculptor...
But what are clearly shown are status symbols: the cape on the shoulder in centurion's fashion, the double weighted pilum --which makes me suspect this thing is later that Ist C.AD... and the muscle cuirass.

[Daniel S Peterson]

Jim, the Indian parchment is thin rawhide, probably goat. If the rawhide is formed first it can be placed on the shield without being glued. Maybe this is why there is no trace of rawhide over the felt on the fayum shield. It seems to me that the facing material of all surviving medieval shields is rawhide, rather than a soft leather.

It is possible some scutua could be of all rawhide construction, like the parma equestra and various asian shields. This may be suggested by the incredibly thin shield edgings that have been found. A shield of two thick sheets of formed rawhide, the front embossed with eagle wings and other motiffs (which may have also increased its strength), bound in cupric alloy edging would be both light and extremely tough.

Dan

[Tarbicus]

It is possible some scutua could be of all rawhide construction, like the parma equestra ..... , bound in cupric alloy edging would be both light and extremely tough.

That's very interesting, thanks Dan.

If the rawhide is formed first it can be placed on the shield without being glued. ..... all surviving medieval shields is rawhide, rather than a soft leather.

Again interesting. Looks like the scutum finishing just became a tad more complex :wink: The absence of glue, and the rawhide being pre-formed, just convinced me. Essentially, the nails and riveting from the edging, boss, and 'decorations' keep it on instead. I still want to use a layer of linen soaked in glue with sinew fibres mixed in, and I'll stick with metal decorations as there seems to be a lot of evidence for this. Encaustic paint will have to be used to keep the rawhide dry I think. It just got even more complex (and messy).

Cheers.

[Daniel S Peterson]

Messy, complicated, yes, but in the end you may have the most authentic reconstruction yet of a Roman scutum.

I have little doubt the "classic" 1-2 century scuta had embossed surfaces and applied metal decoration. In fact the only surviving "Roman" shield of the 1st century AD (Doncaster) has something like a quarter of its surface covered in cupric alloy decoration, so there is precedent for this. The Mainz Praetorian reliefs, in which the same artist depicted an auxilliary shield perfectly flat (obviously just painted decoration), and legionary shields elaborately raised in relief, strongly suggest this, and some of the earliest intact shields of the medieval era are also embosed with similar motifs (heraldic birds and animals).

Dan

[MARCENTIUS]

I would like to add some amendments and observations to my previous message. We (I and Graham) went directly to Classe last week and we saw the cippus with our own eyes.
The optio has undoubtedly got a muscle cuirass, furnished with a double row of thick lappets at the lower edge. It is worn over a subarmalis furnished with two rows of padded pteryges (at the shoulders) and a single row of padded pteryges around the waist.
What I thought at first was a strap for a shoulder bag is clearly the baldric of a Gladius, which is held in the left hand.
The head of the gladius is clearly still visible. No doubt about the correspondence of the shaft, furnished with two spherical weights, with the point still visible.
The archaeologist dated the cippus to the end of the first century AD, or may be the beginning of second.
Best wishes to all
Raffaele

[Tarbicus]

The optio has undoubtedly got a muscle cuirass.... the shaft, furnished with two spherical weights, with the point still visible....

Thanks Raffaele, I'm humbly eating my words :?

is clearly the baldric of a Gladius, which is held in the left hand.

Except for that bit

Cheers.

[ambrosius]

What I thought at first was a strap for a shoulder bag is clearly the baldric of a Gladius, which is held in the left hand. The head of the gladius is clearly still visible. Raffaele

Right. I think I see what you're saying. What we can see is the pommel
of gladius. The guy's left hand is holding the grip (behind the pommel)
and the scabbard is pointing straight backwards, completely hidden behind
the pommel. :wink:

Ambrosius

[mcbishop]

The archaeologist dated the cippus to the end of the first century AD, or may be the beginning of second.

In which case you have to wonder why the deceased is mentioned in the nominative case and there is no D(is) M(anibus). What exactly about the stone says late 1st/early 2nd century? That may well have been its archaeological context, but the relief and inscription look Julio-Claudian or, at latest, Flavian to me.

It is worn over a subarmalis furnished with two rows of padded pteryges (at the shoulders) and a single row of padded pteryges around the waist.

Well that's three factoids in a row!

1 How can you tell from a stone that it is worn over a 'subarmalis'? It is an assumption that the pteryges and lappets belong to an arming doublet, but nothing about this stone proves that;

2 We do not know for certain that the arming doublet was called a subarmalis; it is a reasonable assumption, no more;

3 How do we know the pteryges are padded (has someone slit one open and taken a look)?

One has to be very careful when interpreting representational evidence. This stone can certainly be interpreted as showing these features, but it is equally open to alternative interpretations. Speculation like this can repidly mutate into factoids and it won't be long before somebody is posting saying 'I remember seeing a post about a sculpture that proved that all pteryges were padded'!

Mike Bishop

[Praefectusclassis]

Here's a quote from Dio's report about Actium for a little 'contemporary' (ok, he's early 3rd C, but still) account of armour in naval warfare. From Cassius Dio, bk.50.35:

But when none of the enemy came near enough, since they were guarding against this very thing, and when the fire spread to the encircling walls and descended into the hold, the most terrible of fates came upon them. section 2Some, and particularly the sailors, perished by the smoke before the flame so much as approached them, while others were roasted in the midst of it as though in ovens. Others were consumed in their armour when it became heated. section 3There were still others, who, before they should suffer such a death, or when they were half-burned, threw off their armour and were wounded by the shots which came from a distance, or again leaped into the sea and were drowned, or were struck by their opponents and sank, or were mangled by sea-monsters. section 4Those alone found a death that was tolerable, considering the sufferings which prevailed, who were killed by their fellows in return for the same service, or else killed themselves, before any such fate could befall them; for they not only had no tortures to endure, but when dead had the burning ships for their funeral pyres.

[Daniel S Peterson]

"Roasted in their armor" certainly seems to imply metal armor, and probably a molded, solid metal cuirass, as we do see in other Naval contexts as well. When we consider how corrosive sea water is to iron, the most logical metal armor for sea service would probably be a cupric alloy molded cuirass, long after they may have been largely discontinued for land service. This may also be why the two marine legions (1 & II Adiutrix) are associated with cupric alloy "copies" of the current iron Imperial Gallic helmets.

Though off-topic I found it curious that the account mentions being attacked by "sea monsters" rather than fish, unless the terms are interchangable. One thing that has alway intrigued me is that although most Roman "monsters" are very naive half-animal half fish or half-human kinds of things, their favorite sea monster, the Ketos, looks uncannily like a real prehistoric plesiosaur, (or the popular conception of the Loch Ness monster). This same, distinctly reptilian sea creature is seen in art from classical Greece to the end of the Roman Empire, including the decoration of Roman military equipment.

[Praefectusclassis]

Well, before any conclusions are drawn from this evidence, it's definitely time to check the Greek.