Centurio Tombstone, Turin Italy

[Doc]

I saw the sculpture below in the museum of Roman Civilization. It was labeled as being a centurion. As can be seen, my picture did not come out well. The same centurio is mentioned in the new book by D'Amato and he says it is in a museum in Turin. Does anyone have any good photos of this centurios musculata. It appears from the picture that it has none of the decoration usually seen on other Roman musculata sculputres i.e gorgons. However, I could be wrong. It appears that at the center of his chest, where the clavicles meet, that there is some shadow but I cannot tell if it is a shadow from the stone or if something is actually there.

[Paullus Scipio]

The one in the Museo dei Civilita Romana may be a plaster copy of an original in a museum in Turin ( much in there consists of plaster copies) or even vice versa.

At all events, I very much doubt that the relief is of a "Centurion". His 'muskelpanzer'/muscled cuirass and particularly the short 'parazonium' sword are the marks of senior officers, often of the Imperial family. The simple undecorated nature of both body armour and 'parazonium' imply he is of lesser rank than the Imperial family, so my guess is that a Legate or Tribune is depicted here ( probably the former - the 'parazonium' seems to have been a symbol of commander's rank). But 'simple' armour could be worn by Emperors and their families too....see depictions of Trajan on his column for example.....

[Doc]

Paul,

I know that much of what is in that museum are plaster copies. I do not know however, why they label this man as a centurio. There is another plaster copy of a man wearing a musculata with a central gorgon from that museum and that also is labeled as a centurio. If in fact this image is that of a tribune or legate, all the better since I was looking for armor that could be used for more than one impression. I figured that I could use this for centurio or higher rank as you mentioned. It is not really a problem since I have scale being made for my centurio impression and a musculata will only boraden the possibilities of other ranks.

Also thanks for reinforcing the issue that the emperor also wore a "simple" musculata. I remember seeing the casts of Trajan's column at that museum that showed Trajan with simple musculata. However, at first I was not sure if I was remembering correctly which is why I did not ask in my original post.

However, could the column be "trusted" with a simple musculata representation for the emperor. I saw another bust in the Capitoline museum that shows Trajan in a scale armor which was highly decorated. You may have seen this on RAT before where the discussion was about a scaled musculata and if those scales were applied or embossed. It had a gorgon in the center and the apomedes that were tied down in the same fashion as a musculata. I for one see the Trajan figure as plausible since the emperor could have obviously owned more than one armor.

[Magnus]

However, could the column be "trusted" with a simple musculata representation for the emperor. I saw another bust in the Capitoline museum that shows Trajan in a scale armor which was highly decorated. You may have seen this on RAT before where the discussion was about a scaled musculata and if those scales were applied or embossed. It had a gorgon in the center and the apomedes that were tied down in the same fashion as a musculata. I for one see the Trajan figure as plausible since the emperor could have obviously owned more than one armor.

I would somewhat confidently say yes in this specific case. If Trajan's Column is the propaganda piece it's made out to be, then why would the artist not show Trajan in a musculata similar to the Prima Porta? Why not show him in a truly fantastic piece of armour? Instead he shows him in a plain one, which leads me to believe it may be an accurate portrayal.

[Doc]

Matt,

I agree with you completely. I have been thinking about it since I wrote my post. Think of it another way, why would all those auxillary scuta be so detailed and the emperor left as if insignificant. Even on the sword of Tiberius the emperor has a plain musculata.

I also think that the picture I posted could be a centurio since I see no Hercules knot which is usually seen on tribunes and legates. Anyway, as I said, it gives me latitude to be a centurio or higher.

Thanks for all your answers

[john m roberts]

I wonder if this might have been a personal affectation of the Emperor, in the way that Henry II of England wore rough, peasant's clothes when his court preferred French finery. Did Trajan simply wish to be portrayed as a "plain soldier"? He would not be the first or last sovereign to want to project that image. He couldn't very well have himself portrayed in a segmentata or hamata, but a plain musculata would convey the message about as well.

[M. Demetrius]

There is always the chance that decorative details on the armor might have been painted and/or gold leaf appliques, which could have disappeared. How large are the figures on this sculpture? 100 cm? 2 m? Hard to tell from the photo alone. The smaller, IMO, the more likely the decorative detail (if existing in the original) would not have been carved from the stone originally.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

But the ygo into so much detail on everything else Dave. Why skimp on the patron of the column?

[M. Demetrius]

No reason, not that things making sense to me is of any interest to the ancients, of course. They could have used finer grained limestone or marble (or other stone), and carved very small, highly detailed statues, and they did, naturally. Just thinking of things that might answer the original question.

[Doc]

Byron,

Spot on. That was the point I was trying to make about the column when I answered Matt.

Now, back to the original question: Any info on what is present, if anything, on that musculata the centurion(?) is wearing? It looks plain, but there are some shadows in the abdomen and center near the clavicles that make me wonder. Maybe its just that the photo is not very good.

[PhilusEstilius]

It does look as if there may have been something like a head or a Gorgon at the center chest area and wear over time has removed most of it from the stone, however that looks very much like a Parazonium he is holding therefore I would be inclined to put a large question mark after Centurian.

Then the question of the Emperor Trajan looking a bit plain in his armour may well be that he is looking just like an ordinary soldier, however as we know many of the figures did hold weapons in their hands which over the years have been removed.

It may very well be that David could be right the Emperor might have been covered in gold leaf and all kinds of decoration that has been removed.

[Doc]

The Sword of Tiberius has the emperor in a plain musculata while all the other figures are detailed. As far as painting the details on the musculata on Trajans column is concerend, it is difficult to see some of the details that are sculpted as it is, painting decoration on a musculata that is already small to begin with assumes that the Romans head binocluars to see the details.

It is true that the man in the photo is holding something possibly a parazonium. But does this one item discount someone from being a centurion? There must be a reason why the museum labled the man as such. I think I will call the museum in Turin and find out.

[Doc]

Are there any known Roman plain musculata sculptures? I know that there is a plain musculata in D'Amato's new book but it is not a sculpture.

[Magnus]

And, any known musculata sculptures/statues that hint at gold leaf decoration?

[Doc]

Matt,

I was wondering about that myself. I just find it difficult to believe that something that small would just be painted or have something applied to it. If anything it would have been sculpted on.