Novae, Bulgaria Bronze Segmentata?

[Doc]

I was reading the recent book by D'Amato and Sumner and came across the description of the Domus Area soldier.

It appears that this man is wearing a yellow segmented armor (presumably copper alloy in nature) and on RAT I do remember a discussion about a fragment of copper alloy POSSIBLY being from a segmentata. However, in this recent book on page 94, D'Amato states that "recent finds of a bronze segmentata" confirm the painting in the Domus Aurea.

How recent is this find and is there any other information about it. I am not making a comment about what is stated in the book only that I think it would be cool if there was a bronze segmentata.

Truth be told, as far as armor is concerned, helmets and body armor of just about every type have been made of iron or some copper alloy so why not a segmentata? i.e scale armor, the same sort of scales have been found using both metals

[jkaler48]

I sure hope no one finds a bronze Segmentata. It will drive dozens of people crazy trying to source sheet bronze that costs more than a new car to make one. Then we also could get
yellow brass ones showing up in lieu of bronze not a pretty sight!

[Dan Howard]

This makes no sense. Segmentata was peasant armour. Anyone with the wealth to have bronze armour would be wearing a musculata, not segmentata.

[Doc]

Well, I do not know Dan. Maybe D'Amato generalized copper alloy pieces as bronze just like in the past. But then again in this book, he mentions brass as well for copper alloy pieces.
I can see your point about the armor. However, many republican helmets were made of bronze and did not necessarily designate a show of wealth.

[jkaler48]

It may well be that price ratios between iron and bronze changed over time and from area to area influencing the selection of metals on a cost of material basis.
Certainly that is true today with bronze helmets having a much higher materials cost than brass or steel.

[Matthew Amt]

Somewhere on RAT (not too long ago!) are Mike Bishop's comments on this. I believe he got a look at the pieces, and said they include some stray lorica fittings (hinges, etc.), and a number of fragments of copper alloy strip. But the width of the strips and the placement of the rivet holes--not to mention the fact that NONE of them had any lorica fittings attached!--made it clear to him that these were fragments of a manica. They just happened to be found with some lorica fittings, and so were misinterpreted as a copper alloy segmentata.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of that, Mike!

Valete,

Matthew

[Doc]

Matt,

I remember the thread on this before. That is what I think I was trying to point out. When D'amato states recent finds, is he suggesting in the last couple of years or that piece that Bishop was referring to.

[A_Volpe]

how big are these fragments? Just because some bits and pieces were found strewn with some other bits and pieces that looks like Segmentata fittings, to me that does not equal an all-bronze or primarily-bronze seggie armor.

Is it not possible that the fragments could have been a replacement plate as a last-minute throw-together?

The Corbridge horde - from what I have been told - had a shoulder section of seggie armor where they did away with the hinge entirely on one of the plates, electing to just rivet the whole section of plates together - Could a "spacer" plate of bronze be used in a similar fashion? I think that is more probable than making a whole armor of bronze.

Dan -

This makes no sense. Segmentata was peasant armour. Anyone with the wealth to have bronze armour would be wearing a musculata, not segmentata.

I'm not sure I understand the categorizing of bronze as a "peasant" material? Romans were using bronze for all sorts of applications, and if going by what you said, why would a wealthy well-to-do officer be paying for such "peasant" metal? Would he not be going for a more expensive, exotic material to show off his status?

The quality of their brass and bronze I have been told by several people is of high quality. One person has explained to me it's on the same level of quality they are using in their coins. That is not "cheapo" material. If the metal was of such poor quality, then why did the Romans horde it so much and use it so much?

Most of the evidence supports the idea that Romans seemed to have preferred Iron for their body armor, whereas brass seemed to be pretty common for helmets. So if this is what you mean by bronze not being used by soldiers for body armor, I would tend to agree with you.

But the category of "peasant" in the first place - To the best of my knowledge, Classes of soldiers reflecting a Roman's land and status was essentially eliminated once the Legions became "all volunteer"...Also, the evidence that a large amount of arms and armor and gear being as heavily decorated, tinned and silvered as there is for the Romans, I don't see how a soldier pouring a lot of his hard-earned, measly paycheck into his gear categorizes him as a "peasant", if he is making just a little extra money to be able to decorate his gear, that is an indication they were not necessarily living bare-bones and paycheck to paycheck.

[Theodosius the Great]

This makes no sense. Segmentata was peasant armour. Anyone with the wealth to have bronze armour would be wearing a musculata, not segmentata.

I'm not so sure it would be inconsistent for Roman art to show an important person wearing segmentata.
This statue shows Mars wearing segmentata, for example : http://www.romancoins.info/London.JPG
If segmentata is good enough for the god of War, why not an officer ?

~Theo

[Doc]

Andy,

I do not think Dan was saying that bronze is peasent material to make a segmentata out of. He was referring to the segmentata itself being a peasent armor. Therefore, if the segmentata is a peasent armor then why use a valuable material; if a person was able to afford bronze then this same person would purchase a more expensive and prestigious armor not peasent armor.

I believe this is what he is saying. Correct me if I am wrong Dan.

[Dan Howard]

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. I seriously doubt that anyone will ever dig up a bronze segmentata.

[Dan Howard]

If segmentata is good enough for the god of War, why not an officer ?

Doesn't look like segmentata to me. Looks more like scale or lamellar with the paint worn off.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Therefore, if the segmentata is a peasent armor then why use a valuable material; if a person was able to afford bronze then this same person would purchase a more expensive and prestigious armor not peasent armor.

Then why are there finds of segmentata pieces which were originally covered with silver sheet metal? (Kalkriese)

[Tarbicus]

Therefore, if the segmentata is a peasent armor then why use a valuable material; if a person was able to afford bronze then this same person would purchase a more expensive and prestigious armor not peasent armor.

Then why are there finds of segmentata platres which were originally covered with silver sheet metal? (Kalkriese)

hock:

[Matt Lukes]

Yeah, that one's news to me- silver sheet on segmentata plates? How can you not reference that one?! hock:

Overall, it doesn't seem to me that generally associated pieces, such as were described, would serve as particularly good evidence- a nice breast or upper shoulder guard plate with its associated hinges and buckles or some other such clear segmentata element would seem to be pretty necessary to clinch it; the debate over the liklihood would probably be endless (and not terribly productive LOL) since there are plausible reasons for both cases. That statue hardly has 'Mars' marked on it I think, so it could be anyone and anyway it's just art- putting Mars in commonly-seen (on monuments) armour is not unreasonable- but indeed copper alloy was actual money, so would someone who could afford it want a less-ornate type of armour? But then helmets were still made of copper alloy through the early 1st century CE, and they're not exactly a small amount of metal either... it goes on.

Plus it may be a mistake to bring brass vs. bronze in as well- who knows if the report is using the unfortunately general term 'bronze' when they haven't actually done a metalurgical analysis to show it really is. Anyway, it's the tin that makes bronze so expensive relativly- iron is the second most abundant metal on Earth, and there's 34x more zinc than tin (abundance in Earth's crust Fe/Zn/Cu/Sn = 41000/75/50/2.2 ppm, respectively- [url:33n7zc42]http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/Fe.html#Who[/url]), so bronze will always be worth more than brass.