L. segmentata Shoulder Plates

[Matt Lukes]

Hi guys,<br>
<br>
Is it actually the case that present thinking is that the center point of the pentagonal middle 'greater' shoulder plate of the Lorica segmentata pointed in and not out? I thought I had read somewhere recently that it was the other way around- that incorrect reconstructions had it pointed in- but now I notice that the LegioXX website states very clearly that outward is the mistake. I can find pictures of reconstructions and reenactors' armor that show both, so I'd really like to know what the current archaeological thinking is.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Matt <p></p><i></i>

[FlaviusCrispus]

Matt--<br>
<br>
I think the current thinking is, the "peak" of the pentagon points inward-- that is, toward the neck. This applies to the Corbridge B and C cuirasses (the A models have a straight rectangular mid-plate on the upper shoulder guard, despite what Deepeeka has on theirs), and (presumably) to the Newstead cuirass. It's the way we make ours, anyway.<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus<br>
Legio VI VPF<br>
CA, USA <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

The reason for that, BTW, is that the "point" seems to cover (in most cases, anyway) the rivet that's attaching the central leather strap to the mid-collar plate. IMHO. While not all rivet heads are thus covered, one could argue that this one is particularly vulnerable to a strong, downward blow if left exposed. It seems that the Romans always had a reason for designing things a certain way, even if we have yet to fully appreciate why.<br>
<br>
Now to muddy this clear-cut footnote. Dan Peterson wrote in a related thread last year that segmentata remains have been recovered with the point inward on some, outward on others. Which may just show that the slaves/persons manufacturing the original armor did not themselves always know which way they went!<br>
<br>
Severus <p></p><i></i>

[mcbishop]

<em>Now to muddy this clear-cut footnote. Dan Peterson wrote in a related thread last year that segmentata remains have been recovered with the point inward on some, outward on others. Which may just show that the slaves/persons manufacturing the original armor did not themselves always know which way they went!</em><br>
<br>
This needs clarification. So far as I'm aware, the Corbridge Hoard is the only find to provide the evidence for the upper shoulder guard's position relative to the rest of the shoulder assembly, so we're not dealing with a statistically significant sample here! Out of six shoulder assemblies (ie one quarter of a cuirass) four were Corbridge A and two B/C; of the two B/C, the B was found with its USG <em>in situ</em> and that had the point on the inside, whilst the C had had its USG transplanted onto an A (which had evidently lost its own: there are 3 A USGs and 2 B/Cs). The A/C hybrid USG was unfortunately not recorded <em>in situ</em>, but the LSGs are all stacked within the flat-edged side of the USG and leathered in such a way that it is clear that the point was originally on the inside with that one too. Alles klar?<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>

[Matt Lukes]

Alles klar. Thanks for the info guys- now I feel better about assembling my next cuirass with the USG facing in. It still strikes me as an odd design considering it would appear that the point facing in would interfere with the raising of the wearer's arm.<br>
<br>
Matt <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Stimmt, herr Doktor! <p></p><i></i>