10-07-2009, 03:59 PM
I´d rather comment on the general use of sources, which is IMO, frankly, unprofessional.
It is a teleological argument, first assuming the existence of such armour, and then looking for evidence. Methodologically this is frivolous. The normal mode is to have a specific question, then to look at the sources, to discuss the sources with pro- and contra arguments if necessary, and finally to offer a result.
Wherever I have the comment (Ancient Art) below, this refers to artistic convention, the general inability of ancient artists to naturalistically display human bodies, and the possibility that certain styles that were en vogue at certain periods in Roman history in ways of display as well as construction / production of art might influence an interpretation of the sources, especially when one assumes, as seems to be the case here, that all the art we have preserved from antiquity is photorealistic.
My commet follows the sequence in which the sources are presented in the text, but only for those for which actual pictorial evidence is given in the text, so that you can compare easily without having to look into an other book, when re-checking what I wrote below.
I will first start with the section on leather musculata:
AaAotIRSp- 135-136
1. Augustus statue Primaporta (AaAotIRS plate 4): could equally display a silver cuirass
2.Arelatum frieze(AaAotIRS plate 103): there is no evidence whatsoever that the displayed cuirass is leather. Could equally be metal (Ancient art)
3.Pertinax statue (AaAotIRS plate 163):here is no evidence whatsoever that the displayed cuirass is leather. Could equally be metal or even fabric.
4. Pendant from Windisch (AaAotIRS plate 178): Just read footnote 405. There is no evidence whatsoever that this object is related to a leather armour.
5. Caelius- stone (AaAotIRS plate 157): unaware of a possible change in the tone of the pigments used, unaware of the possibility of a use of intentionally patinized brass or bronze
6. Dancing Centurio (AaAotIRS plate 179): unaware of the possibility of a use of intentionally patinized brass or bronze, equally not regarding the high "impressionistic" character of Pompejian art in general
7.Villa Albani (AaAotIRS plate 98): Could equally be fabric, or mail (Ancient Art)
8. Facilis (AaAotIRS plate IV, 72) could equally be fabric or mail
9.Gardun relief (AaAotIRS plate 105) coould equally be fabric or mail (Ancient Art)
10. casa dei Vetti fresco (AaAotIRS plate 86) is pretty much what is common in etruscan art. Convention.
11.Gardun relief (AaAotIRS plate 105) The hole of the sleev could equally be a cornu, as can be seen between the shields just on the picture on the left of this one. It is far from "clear" since the relevant part is broken off.
More to follow.
It is a teleological argument, first assuming the existence of such armour, and then looking for evidence. Methodologically this is frivolous. The normal mode is to have a specific question, then to look at the sources, to discuss the sources with pro- and contra arguments if necessary, and finally to offer a result.
Wherever I have the comment (Ancient Art) below, this refers to artistic convention, the general inability of ancient artists to naturalistically display human bodies, and the possibility that certain styles that were en vogue at certain periods in Roman history in ways of display as well as construction / production of art might influence an interpretation of the sources, especially when one assumes, as seems to be the case here, that all the art we have preserved from antiquity is photorealistic.
My commet follows the sequence in which the sources are presented in the text, but only for those for which actual pictorial evidence is given in the text, so that you can compare easily without having to look into an other book, when re-checking what I wrote below.
I will first start with the section on leather musculata:
AaAotIRSp- 135-136
1. Augustus statue Primaporta (AaAotIRS plate 4): could equally display a silver cuirass
2.Arelatum frieze(AaAotIRS plate 103): there is no evidence whatsoever that the displayed cuirass is leather. Could equally be metal (Ancient art)
3.Pertinax statue (AaAotIRS plate 163):here is no evidence whatsoever that the displayed cuirass is leather. Could equally be metal or even fabric.
4. Pendant from Windisch (AaAotIRS plate 178): Just read footnote 405. There is no evidence whatsoever that this object is related to a leather armour.
5. Caelius- stone (AaAotIRS plate 157): unaware of a possible change in the tone of the pigments used, unaware of the possibility of a use of intentionally patinized brass or bronze
6. Dancing Centurio (AaAotIRS plate 179): unaware of the possibility of a use of intentionally patinized brass or bronze, equally not regarding the high "impressionistic" character of Pompejian art in general
7.Villa Albani (AaAotIRS plate 98): Could equally be fabric, or mail (Ancient Art)
8. Facilis (AaAotIRS plate IV, 72) could equally be fabric or mail
9.Gardun relief (AaAotIRS plate 105) coould equally be fabric or mail (Ancient Art)
10. casa dei Vetti fresco (AaAotIRS plate 86) is pretty much what is common in etruscan art. Convention.
11.Gardun relief (AaAotIRS plate 105) The hole of the sleev could equally be a cornu, as can be seen between the shields just on the picture on the left of this one. It is far from "clear" since the relevant part is broken off.
More to follow.
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
