Quote:Well, there are two main questions I am facing at the moment:
First, whether calcei equestris (maybe they had another name) were used in the Roman army, in which periods (I am especially interesting in the last quarter of the 1st century A.D.), who could wear them and how did they look (I am aware only of calcei from Mainz and Vindolanda).
The main problem is that we know rather little about how the various subtypes of shoes like the calceus were actually differentiated and what they looked like at a given point in Roman history. Also most probably names and their meaning changed for most types over the centuries.
That the calceus equester did exist we know from the price edict of Diocletian, what we do not know for sure however, is what it did look like. Goette (Goette, Hans Rupprecht: Muleus, Embas, Calceus. Ikonographische Studien zu römischem Schuhwerk.Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 103, 1988, 401-64 ) and some others suggest that it was the calceus shown with some statues where you do not see any corrigae but only a cloth-like fold-down covering all of the shaft and part of the vamp of the shoe. In this meaning it is thought to belong to the set of clothing representing a member of the social rank of knights. If that is true, they would not have been used in the army by common troopers of the cavalry or infantry I would say. Also, the finds from Mainz et al. which you know, look different. Vindolanda yielded a few types which most probably were called calcei and we maybe can say that a common design element typical for the time is a more or less long ridge running upwards over the vamp of the foot, in a solid line or broken down into tabs (like the Mainz calceus). Any of these should be ok for an army type of the time around 100 AD.
Quote:Second, would it be justifed, if I reconstruct the design of a caliga by images on statues or reliefs, or findings are the only source for reconstruction?
I think yes, but of course you can never be sure that an artistic representation actually looked like the original(s) - see the various debates about what is depicted on Trajan's column e.g. versus the actual finds we have. I personally find that there is such a gap with respect to caligae between depiction and actual finds just as well.
If you want to go by reliefs et al. it is probably best to take the hard facts like constructional details of seams, leather thickness etc. from the finds and duplicate the character of strap design, ornamental cutouts and such from the pictorial evidence.
hope this helps a bit :-) )