Armatura della Colchide

[Cincinnatus]

This is nothing other than modern. Look no further than the absurd iconography on the cuirass: two pegasus' pulling a cartoon chariot which the driver does not fit in, a winged female (victory?) playing tug of war with two figures (the dioscouroi?), random lions. This would have been nonsense to an ancient viewer and to a anyone working in the Renaissance. The composition is of such a confused nature, and the execution of such poor quality, this could not possibly have been made long ago.

[Matt Lukes]

People will fake anything- I've seen faked WWII heavy artillery shells if you can believe it. Just because it was only lent to the university, doesn't support it not being a fake; it's a good, and well-known way to create some credibility for a piece: don't sell it but 'loan' it, or place it so a credible expert will 'discover' it and so on. What it means is that with one even semi-approved piece, future fakes can be sold.

I can't say I much like the look of this thing either- it's too reminiscent of something I'd expect to find on ebaY. There's nothing about it that says 'authentic' to me- not the least reason is that it's not terribly well-executed work and given that these decorated muscle cuirasses seem to be consistenly associated with very wealthy and high-ranking individuals, I'd really expect a real one to be far better. This is rather inferior to the gladiator pieces from Pompeii (which ARE extremely well done), and those are basically costumes. This one has the look of a Victorian-era reproduction or indeed from any time in the last thousand years- it looks Romanesque, not so much Roman. I had the same reaction as Randall- that the iconography looks like it was assembled haphazardly by someone who didn't really know anything- and before anyone says that'd be silly for a faker to do, they do it all the time. Just look at the 'Roman' swords and daggers that constantly show up on ebaY- there are all kinds of images of real ones out there, but the fakes people try to sell never look like real things, they're always some weird fantasy design.

Overall, since there's no proper provenance for the pieces there simply has to be overwhelming reason to believe they're real. I don't know of any reliable dating method for metal- indeed 14C certainly doesn't apply unless there's some provably associated organic material with it. Really there's nothing that could conclusively show this stuff is real- there was a document faker in the US who fooled 14C dating by cutting the endpapers out of real old books to write on, and he burned the same period paper to add to his ink so even that would test 'old'. In this case all someone would have to do is acquire even a little piece of ancient leather or other known age organic material to 'associate' with the metal.

[Elmar Lang]

Hello,

I'm new in this Forum, although I'vebeen reading about the Colchide's Armour since its "triumphal" appearance in a tv programme in Italy.

The armour is also discussed in an Italian Forum, clicking this link: http://www.archeologia.com/forum/piccol ... yager.html

I'm part of the "fake party" and I think there are many reasons, both stylistical and technical to support this opinion.

Best wishes,

Elmar Lang

[Magnus]

Welcome to RAT Elmar!

[Luca]

In the above italian forum has been posted a very interesting image:

http://www.theoi.com/Gallery/T17.1.html

It is shown a "bended" picture of Helios with 4 horses. The image is bended in order to better fill the vase and of course it appears a sorto of distortion due to the curvature of the vase.

A similare distortion is present on the armour, but there is no reason why the artist had to distort of bend the image: probably an important proof from where the "faker" brutally copied the subject?

[Elmar Lang]

Hello,

there are some news about the "Armour from the Colchide", on the Italian side.

It appears that no image or pictures or pictorial details of the armour can be made public by any means, because of strict prescriptions between Georgian authorities, other representatives of copyright, and for -possibly- scientific reasons.

Prof. Zerbini informs that the armour is being studied by the most eminent expert of military history and equipment from all over the world.

I hope that he would inform us about the names of this worldwide panel of experts, unless it would be considered as a "Cosmic" secret.

Best wishes,

Elmar Lang

[jvrjenivs]

Prof. Zerbini informs that the armour is being studied by the most eminent expert of military history and equipment from all over the world.

The most eminent expert of military history and equipment? Who the hell is that? Sounds like the so called experts you find on ebay, etc.

[Matt Lukes]

Welcome to RAT Elmar

'Most eminent..' well that's good, but I'll be really surprised if they agree on anything much LOL Not allowing photography sounds to me like a money-making issue- there can be no copyright on the object (unless it is a fake and the guy 'loaning' it made it himself LOL), so controlling who can take photos is the way to profit. They can hardly be worried about less-than-'eminent' discussion and opinion since they blew that by displaying the thing on TV...

And I'm not entirely sure I see what all the fuss is anyawy- it'd be an interesting piece if real, but hardly earthshattering; it's not a stretch to initially believe such pieces existed, the decoration isn't unique or spectacular, and really, other than possibly being the only example we have, a decorated musculata is just a 'nice' object. It's hardly a 1st century CE semi-circular scutum with intact paint, for example- THAT would be earthshattering...

[Doc]

I watched the youtube video that has been linked on this thread and the opinion is that there are complications with the dating and identification of this piece as to wether it is Roman or not. It was also said that the lower lion images are very much from "Oriente" which translates to the Orient. It is possible he was referring to the East?

[Luca]

If you intend China or India no.
I believe "oriente" was referring to "east of Rome", this means mainly, the modern Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Romania, Middle East and ... Georgia.

[Doc]

Luca,

This is what I was trying to figure out. It is definitely East of Rome (for the Romans) and I agree that within this context it is the areas you mentioned.

What I am wondering is what that man on the program was describing since he did not clarify what definition of "Oriente" he was referring to. To the general public that he was speaking to, it could have been China or India. Basically, he should have clarified "Oriente" further within the Roman context if this was his intention. Then again, Alexander knew of India and I think the Romans did as well (?) so why not images from there.

[Luca]

Well, usually "oriente" in ancient time means middle east or east Europe. The "other" orient is "Far East".
I think it is clear that in that contest "oriente" was meaning "Middle East" or Balcans or the greek area. It is usual this way to describe the easter provinces in archeological records and statements.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I was under the impression that Romans copied the Greek usage of the term in refering to every thing east of Greece....?

[Doc]

Byron (this is not a personal anything just an observation)

That may be true. However, I find it impossible that a civilization that ruled for nearly 1000 years was incapable of having anything original of their own and all they did was copy. That is what I see very often on this forum the Romans copied this and the Romans copied that. The Romans adopted this and that the Romans.........

If they copied nearly everything that we discuss, then what is the fascination with Rome and its armies. We could just look at eveyone else and it would suffice.

I agree that they adpoted many things as we do today. Perfectly new ideas are not the norm. Every idea, invention or whatever had a prior impetus.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Possibly the fact that they did adapt and were so successful because of it is a case in study in itself.
I am of Greek ancestry(amoungst others) and just do not see the Greeks as termed as Oriente or Asia, as they were the ones who refered to the eastern lands as asia.....probably I would just go along with it if I hadn't come across ther terminology in Greek references prior to the Romans making their mark. Possibly it was a term of derogration towards Greeks by some elements of Roman society?