Velite -
Quote:Mr Amt, For you ONLY what it was found in the excavations really is it existed? If a sculpture represents an object that never was found in the archeological excavations, this means that object never is existed? It's a dream of the sculptor?
Are you are sure in the archeological excavations already they uncovered ALL of the objects that Roman used? It would be able to be instead there are objects that the Roman used but that we not still discovered?
Keep in mind that in some cases, Roman (and Greek) art can be very generalized and fanciful, trying to convey an "ideal" look of something, for instance, the Greek 'look' of perfectly proportioned, nude bodies, rippling with muscles...But in reality the proportions and musclature are not realistic or possible....But it "looks really good".
Many of us adhere to the "rule" that if it cannot be found archaeologically, then we do not readily use it in our impression or reconstruction - it would be making up fictional items to just fill in gaps. This does not always mean that the (armor) never existed, but that is has not yet been found, IF it will ever be found. Romans recycled (metal), and after 1,000-2,000 years, if it happens to survive, it may not be in good enough condition to really compare well with the art, if the art itself survives with any details, and Romans and Greeks painted much (if not all) of their sculptures and statues, so, important details on the piece you found may not have survived, and that information may be lost forever. (an example, soldier's tombstones look like they are shown bare foot, but in reality some of the details of their caligae were painted on, which faded over the years; but we have also dug up hundreds of examples of caligae, so we are positive the soldiers wore them)
It is very frustrating but that is the hard truth. So, we can only go with the archaeological finds and information when we do get our hands on it, so to speak.
It is the same problem in the Renaissance and again in the late 1800's - early 1900's, and with Romanticism - The revival through art and even military culture based on the "ideal" Roman and Greek styles further clouds our ability to seperate "fact" from "fantasy".
Also, later period Roman art, as what I can see, tends to generalize and simplify details on their depiction of (soldiers), likely so that you can determine it is a soldier you are looking at, quickly and easily. You can determine that sculpture is a "Roman Soldier" because he is wearing "armor" and a "helmet" - this is all of the information you need as a regular person who has no detailed knowledge of the Roman soldier.
Example - You know a modern soldier today when you see one (in art) because they are likely wearing some kind of camoflauged uniform and carry some sort of firearm. But, if you know the details of the particular army, you would be able to determine what country they are from, and likely what year their gear is from. We do not always have this detailed information about the Romans.
But, in any case, remember that we try to go with what we have that survives. If and when we do find new finds of (armor), and it is proven to be of the Roman period, then (we) will happily accept it and reconstruct it and add it into our impressions. Sometimes we have had to re-reconstruct our impressions due to recent finds, we have had to "update" our interpretations and information because of new research.
The cingulum is what it is!
