Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Another new Graham Sumner book?
This is a very interesting discussion. I have to say that it don't convinced me about the use of leather armour. But that doesn't make a point. The book presents a new view on the way to study and make some very interesting statements. Instead of saying I don't believe in leather armour, we should now argue against the methods he use to work with his sources. I only read this book once, and so far I couldn't come up with a point were I can't follow why he argues that way. I hope this will thus open a whole new discussion to the topic.

And one of the most interesting arguments (to me at least) was that there is a distinction between a leather helmet and a metal one. (if I'm remember right the source for that is Varro). Okay, I can't read Latin and I didn't check the reference, but if that's true we have an interesting starting point for an scientific discussion about the use of leather as protective gear in the Roman army. Anyway, the discussion is starting already and I would much enjoy reading about it. It will become a very interesting one over the next months, I think.
________________________________________
Jvrjenivs Peregrinvs Magnvs / FEBRVARIVS
A.K.A. Jurjen Draaisma
CORBVLO and Fectio
ALA I BATAVORUM
Reply
Quote:
Quote:There was a helmet posted here on RAT some time ago that was made from two pieces. I remember Matt Amt was quite surprised to see a two piece helmet where the neckguard appeared to be added on. Unfortunately, I do not have the thread or remember the precise find.
I remember that thread. The helmet was an Italic A and I believe that the neck guard was riveted on. The helmet bowl was one piece. In contrast, the helmet on page 114 of D'amato's book shows a seam separating the two halves of the helmet bowl. The metal of the seam shows a nice copper color where the artificial aging didn't take.

It's a Imperial Italic A in phosphor bronze, developed by Christian Koepfer (see his topic here)

[Image: DSCF0013.jpg]
________________________________________
Jvrjenivs Peregrinvs Magnvs / FEBRVARIVS
A.K.A. Jurjen Draaisma
CORBVLO and Fectio
ALA I BATAVORUM
Reply
Quote:So looking closer am I to understand that the first book deals in STRICTLY the armor and weapons while the other deals in clothing and such? Just so I also know, you illustrated the first book, but authored the second? Amazon has you listed as the author for both.
This is disappointing as I love Mr Sumner's work. If he didn't write any of the text then I'm not buying the book. I'll borrow it and take note of the photos of the new pieces of evidence but, based on other works writen by Dr D'Amato, the text won't be of much use to me.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
Guys,

I'm strictly an amateur of things Roman and military. I'm very pleased with the book overall. It has given me access to a wealth of detail that might have taken me years to see/read. Moreover, it has made me think about Roman kit. I have long thought that Romans employed a whole range of armour and weapons and this work confirms it for me. I hope the book will continue to stimulate debate on these pages! I also hope that some 25mm figure designers take the risk of giving us some truly different Romans to deploy!

My only disappointment was not to have more colour reconstructions to drool over! I really love the crest on the late Republican tribune. Most depictions make them look like scrubbing brushes rather than something designed to intimdate the wearer's opponents. Come on Graham! Get painting!!!

I shall pour a libation soon for Messrs Sumner and d'Amato .. in gratitude! Thank you.

Theo
Reply
"This is disappointing as I love Mr Sumner's work. If he didn't write any of the text then I'm not buying the book. I'll borrow it and take note of the photos of the new pieces of evidence but, based on other works writen by Dr D'Amato, the text won't be of much use to me".


This assertion does not has any sense.
As already explained by Graham Sumner, He actively partecipated to the realization of this book. He completely agreed with the Dr. D'Amato fully reasonably evaluations, analisys, and comparison based on a long exhaustive and copious research of original sources and archaeological fittings, as well as artistic and literary representations. The other previous book made by D'Amato-Sumner, was Military Clothing III, not strictly related to the weaponry, but there are a lot of interesting articles done by D'Amato on ancient warfare - with paintings of Graham and not only - which had even solved some controversial topic, like that of the ventrale found on the Herculaneum soldier.
Moreover Sumner himself in his last book about Roman clothing claims that the 50% of the work was based upon Raffaele research!
This book is without any doubt useful for any serious researcher in Roman armours and weaponry, considering the large amount of new evidence presented.
Any re-enactor, scholar and student of Roman Army should thank the authors for the huge work done, which allow finally to have a new and much more correct vision of the reality of the Roman military Equipment, far from the usual stereotypes, so far shown on mostly of the books related to the topic.
Reply
Jurjenus wrote:
Quote:And one of the most interesting arguments (to me at least) was that there is a distinction between a leather helmet and a metal one. (if I'm remember right the source for that is Varro). Okay, I can't read Latin and I didn't check the reference, but if that's true we have an interesting starting point for an scientific discussion about the use of leather as protective gear in the Roman army.

Quote:Galea
(kranos, poet. korus, pêlêx). A helmet, casque. The helmet was originally made of skin or leather, whence is supposed to have arisen its appellation, kuneê, meaning properly a cap or helmet of dogskin, but applied to caps or helmets made of the hide of other animals, not necessarily worn as armour (taureiê, ktideê, Hom. Il.x. 258Hom. Il., 335; aigeiê, Homer Od.xxiv. 230; Herod.vii. 77; galea lupina, Propert. iv. 11, 19), and even to those which were entirely of bronze or iron ( Od.xviii. 377). The leathern basis of the helmet was also very commonly strengthened and adorned by the addition of either bronze or gold ( Il.xi. 352). Helmets which had a metallic basis were in Latin properly called cassides ( Germ.6), although the terms galea and cassis are often confounded.
Harry Thurston Peck;Harper's Classical dictionary of antiquities 1898

It is clear that galea in latin originally referred to leather/skin caps and/or helmets; and cassis the metal helmet, and that the galea was in use in very early Roman times, and certainly continued in hunting use much later. Even in historical times, there is evidence to suggest that leather/rawhide helmets and armour existed - in Spain during and after the Punic Wars for example, and Spanish auxiliaries serving in the Roman army may have been so equipped - but doubtless eager to acquire the increasingly common cheap bronze conical and montefortino helmets typical of Western Mediterranean armies. Certainly there is no evidence that Roman or Italian socii by this time wore anything other than bronze helmets, and thus the term 'galea' became synonymous with 'cassis' in meaning 'helmet', because ALL helmets were now metal.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
On leather helmets, we do not have evidence for Italy, but they may have been quite widespread in the Hellenistic world.

Stone models of helmets and cheek pieces from Egypt are on exhibition in the Allard Pierson Museum Amsterdam (see Japser's blog: [url:3g9716wf]http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/editors-blog/jasper-oorthuys/visit-to-amsterdam.html[/url]) and, I believe, also in Berlin, Bonn, Hildesheim and Paris (see also [url:3g9716wf]http://images.tresoar.nl/bibl-collectie/Hermeneus/Jaargang%2048/4803.pdf[/url]).

These models show intricate designs carved into the stone. These designs are seen as evidence that the models were not used to beat bronze over the stone (because it would have been impossible to catch the fine lines and anyway the designs would then have been negative) but to shrink leather over the stone and then turn it inside out (I have no idea whether this is actually feasible).
Regards,


Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Reply
Quote:These models show intricate designs carved into the stone. These designs are seen as evidence that the models were not used to beat bronze over the stone (because it would have been impossible to catch the fine lines and anyway the designs would then have been negative) but to shrink leather over the stone and then turn it inside out (I have no idea whether this is actually feasible).
It is possible if the leather is thin enough. But if the leather is thin enough, it no longer functions as armour.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
Quote:On leather helmets, we do not have evidence for Italy, but they may have been quite widespread in the Hellenistic world.

Stone models of helmets and cheek pieces from Egypt are on exhibition in the Allard Pierson Museum Amsterdam (see Japser's blog: [url:zce6ozb3]http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/editors-blog/jasper-oorthuys/visit-to-amsterdam.html[/url]) and, I believe, also in Berlin, Bonn, Hildesheim and Paris (see also [url:zce6ozb3]http://images.tresoar.nl/bibl-collectie/Hermeneus/Jaargang%2048/4803.pdf[/url]).

These models show intricate designs carved into the stone. These designs are seen as evidence that the models were not used to beat bronze over the stone (because it would have been impossible to catch the fine lines and anyway the designs would then have been negative) but to shrink leather over the stone and then turn it inside out (I have no idea whether this is actually feasible).

As has been discussed in another recent thread, I don't think there's any reason to take this as evidence for leather helmets being worn. Two of the moulds are for shields, and we know for a fact that shield facings were beaten in bronze. What are the examples from Berlin, Bonn, Hidlesheim and Paris? I've only ever seen the ones from Amsterdam discussed in publications.

It should be noted that there is no other evidence for leather helmets being worn in the Hellenistic period, only leather caps.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
Couldn't a press for a leather cap be used just to put a "tooled" design on the surface? They emboss leather more or less the same way today for belts, wallets, purses, etc. I'm sure our equipment is faster, but the principle would still be the same.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
Ruben wrote:
Quote:Two of the moulds are for shields, and we know for a fact that shield facings were beaten in bronze.
.....but as was noted on that other thread, the moulds for the shields were "female" moulds i.e. hammered from the rear to produce a pattern on the front, whilst the helmet moulds are "male" moulds which work in reverse, and much more difficult, if not impossible, to produce detail in bronze that way.....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
Quote:That still does not explain away that it is apparently a Cathaginian wreck and not a roman one. The pottery does indeed point out towards the III Century BC but the remains are Punic along with North African Amphorae.
http://www.culturaclasica.com/?q=node/1579
(Sorry its in Spanish)
While the culturaclasica link refers to Punic amphorae of C3 BC, the d'Amato book refers (p.224) to the cuirass:

"coming from a Roman shipwreck and found together with amphorae of Dressel 20 and Dressel 38 type, i.e. dated around the beginnning of the first and the end of the second centuries AD."

So there seems to be disagreement about the ceramic dating evidence. Does anyone have access to a more detailed report? Could there be stuff from more than one wreck in the cave? How certain is it that the cuirass is associated with the amphorae (whatever the date)?
cheers,
Duncan
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  My Graham Sumner and me richsc 3 1,396 01-31-2015, 12:53 PM
Last Post: M. Val. Naso
  Next Sumner and d\'Amato book Theo 20 5,587 10-11-2010, 03:24 PM
Last Post: Conal
  Review: Roman Military Dress by Graham Sumner Salvianus 7 5,017 07-03-2009, 09:29 PM
Last Post: Gaius Julius Caesar

Forum Jump: