leather cuirass

[Magnus]

Salimbeti, first you need to add your real name to your signature. Forum rule.

The leather find in D'amato's book is hardly evidence of anything. It seems he stretching the scant evidence in order to make his theory work.

"Nobody know all the different type of the attachement which may have been used on these kind of banded cuirasses specially the one made of perishable materials which of course almost never had survived
It not equal to the cuirass depicted but it is enough similar to made a reasonable comparison."

We have a pretty good idea. Read Bishop's Segmentata (which is online). To my knowledge, nothing has been found which has indicated fittings made for a leather cuirass.

"It is not true, in several sculpture shown in the D'Amato book the differece between the leather segmental cuirasses and the metalic one are clearly evidenced"

You put too much faith in artistic representations of armour. By your reckoning, the muscled cuirasses must also be made of leather since the armour is often shown bending along with the body wearing it. This is clearly artistic convention and the combination of archaeological and artistic evidence (sculpture and paintings) without a doubt point to metal, not leather. That includes segmentata.

"There is absolutelly no logical reason to believed that all the segmented armour used by the roman and represented in the sculpure are in metal !!! "

On the contrary, there is no reason to believe otherwise. The topic of hardened leather armour in the form of a segmentata has already been discussed, and it is simply not an efficient use of leather, nor would it function as well as steel/iron.

"Yes It is the first piece wich can be reasonably identify as a possible piece of leather banded armour, because the leather normaly degrated throug the centuries.
I'm sorry but the stereotypized idea that all the banded armour used by romans were in metal is baseless "

Reasonably identify as possible armour? D'amato is not even 100% sure he knows what that piece is. The chances of that being armour are slim at best, especially given it's measurements. You need to come to terms with the fact that in a Roman context, all instances of segmentata are overwhelmingly of metal, be it archaeological finds, or sculpture, or art.

"Otherwise for instance we should also claim that the huge Mycenaeans shield in shape of 8 or in shape of tower are pure theory !!! because of course no elements survived of those shields made of ox hide or leather but we have only few artistic representation !!! and the artistic representation of course are pure fantasyl!!!"

Well, right now that's all it is..a theory. That's what you have until evidence is discovered to prove it. Artistic representation has varying degrees of accuracy. It's best to compare it to other sources in order to get a better understanding of what you may be dealing with.

"or in the Greek linotorax cuirass?"

This has been discussed before, as has the figure 8 shield. There is no comparison. We HAVE many examples of segmentata...both in actual finds, written sources refering to the armour gleaming (leather doesn't gleam), and art. So your comparison doesn't really hold any water.

A good idea is not to take any one source and hold it true as gospel. I'm sure D'amato's book is great, but it cannot be used as a stand-alone academic work. All sources need to be considered before making an opinion.