Armatura della Colchide

[marcos]

Good grief...watching that video made me dizzy! Why couldn't the camera man stand still?

To confuse the vision ? As I said, the biggest part of the program (arond 30 minutes long) has showed banal things. Why?

[jvrjenivs]

yeah, indeed it does. And that video only support my feelings we are dealing with a fake.

[Luca]

Okay, I am the first admitting that there are a lot of suspect things.
But there are also some details that can make thinking the opposite way.

Just two:
- the holes on the rear plaque that compose a decoration. Never seen before, it is hard for me to thing that a "faker"-man decided to make something fake inventing something new and not reflecting what already exist or has been found. In fact those holes appear to me to be put in a strategic point just made to allow the humidity of the body to go out. In fact this is a bad problem of those kind of armours (I tested many many times with my muscolata...)
- the other holes on the bottom of the lorica and on the arm attachments, also in this case never seen before, they could be used to fix leather protection in order to mitigate the possible injuries of the sharp metal to the body OR also used to attach pteruges, or both.

[Quintus Galerius]

in tv they told it was "Ottone" (brass) so a thin metal very bright but not so strong as bronze...it has that holes that are useful to link the armour with something soft inside (spongia), maybe it was an armour just for celebrations, not for the battle field

[Neuraleanus]

If fake, someone went to a great deal of trouble. Are there any examples of known fake roman musculata that can be compared against?

I wonder about the two puncture holes on the front plate, assuming that the armour is genuine, did the wearer get ventilated with a couple of arrows?

[caiusbeerquitius]

Good grief...watching that video made me dizzy!

Welcome to the wonder-world of Italian TV

I am wondering abou the helmet / chin section. Maybe these objects are from a Tropaion? Just an idea.
Authenticity: Should be left to the natural sciences to find out...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

The Georgians are well capable of excellent repouse work, so this thing is well within their capabilities..... :?

[Cincinnatus]

Clearly a fake, in terms of ridiculous iconogrpahy, wrong medium, and applied patina, no doubt.

Randall

[Goffredo]

I know too little about styles and the only reason I suspect a fake is that there is a market for such things! But these pieces were not sold to the italian university. Fakes are sold! This piece was lent for studies in the university's labs. But as one of you just wrote lets see what the physical sciences say. The first result will surely be a likelihood of authenticity.

[Neuraleanus]

The Georgians are well capable of excellent repouse work, so this thing is well within their capabilities..... :?

In that case it is a shame if this is a fake. If the Georgians are so good then they should be selling their wares as reproductions, minus the artificial aging, but then again, they wouldn't receive as much pecunia for them.

[john m roberts]

On the off-chance that it isn't a modern fake, it could be part of a triumphal monument as suggested above, or a non-Roman imitation of Roman regalia. Even the Sutton Hoo regalia was a late barbarian imitation of Roman gear.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

The Georgians are well capable of excellent repouse work, so this thing is well within their capabilities..... :?

In that case it is a shame if this is a fake. If the Georgians are so good then they should be selling their wares as reproductions, minus the artificial aging, but then again, they wouldn't receive as much pecunia for them.

Well they do, or did. i have a beautiful Georgian Hunting dagger, and the scabbard and handle are pretty cool!

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

The set which also had greeves was presented to Russian Hermitage specialists a couple of years ago, who seriously doubted its authenticity. The back side of the lorica has a stamp of the maker, consisting of a sword of some kind and some unconventional Latin inscription.

[marcos]

Assuming that a so splendid armour (if original) was property of a very high level officer, it was certanly for parade and not for war. But... triumphs and parades were made in Rome, not in Colchide !! why the armour was there?
Further it is very strange that it is from brass. This metal was never used for weaponary, I think that the lorica of an emperor was from silver not from bronze or brass.

Then I have a courious notice coming from the book about the armour, but I have to scan pictures. Tomorrov I'll do.

[caiusbeerquitius]

it was certanly for parade and not for war.

Why?
There is more than enough highly decorated material which was certainly used in war as well. See the cavalry face helmets. Were this an original, the helmet would fit into that context very well. But the armour is not wearable on horseback-helmets of this type were so far found in cavalry context. Weird composition.
So far there is no material evidence that the romans used different armour or weapons for parade than for combat.