06-13-2010, 01:01 PM
Quote:"a few fragments where conservation seems to suggest that some of the armour could have been painted black."
In the opening section, page 496 (author unstated) :-
"most of the plate armour is of the Corbridge type, characteristic of the mid-first to mid-second century AD, or the Newstead type, characteristic of the mid-second to mid-third century. Made from hammered or rolled iron sheet, it would have originally been silvery grey in appearance, but would presumably have changed its colour through time, and depending on circumstance, could have been a range of colours from a metalllic grey to rust red. Copper alloy fittings would, of course, originally have been pinkish or brassy in colour, but would have dulled and in their most neglected state become green. Conservation has suggested that some fragments of armour were painted black which adds a new element to their appearance; it might simply have stopped it from rusting, but also raises the possibility that there were times when it was not prudent to stand out in the landscape."
Anything unattributed is by the main volume author (in this case Christine). Looking through my notes suggests that I never actually saw this piece. This is not as surprising as it might seem, given the huge amount of stuff that came from the site and, as a specialist, I was pointed to the larger pieces (although the conservator, Jenny Jones, fed me other stuff to look at when I went to Durham to work on the armguards and provided me with comprehensive illustrated conservation reports on everything from the deposits in question).
Sometimes, as a specialist, you just want to be left alone to rootle through the boxes of junk/can't identify/odds'n'ends to see what you can find, but time, funding, circumstances, and above all volume of material (particularly in the case of Carlisle Millennium - my jaw dropped when I first saw all the military equipment and, frankly, I was a tad more excited by the Newstead lorica seg backplate with intact shoulder hinge than I was about the armguards - seen one, seen 'em all ;-) ) ) do not always make this possible. Being allowed to do that has, in the past, revealed a decorated dagger scabbard in the store at Corbridge and a ring-pommel amongst the Chesters ironwork, both completely ignored since the day they were excavated.
As for it being paint, well I wouldn't get too excited. The Carlisle deposits in question contained every form of goo, gunk, and gunge under the sun, along with the more familiar bits and pieces, so since any form of paint used was going to be as organic as anything non-painty (if you catch my drift) I would be hard put to it to say definitively that this is not something that has just oozed over the plate, rather than it being deliberately 'painted' (which is not the same as blackening or bluing, of course) and I sincerely doubt Jenny would have come out and said 'oooh, it's paint!' without hedging it round with all sorts of caveats, 'might be's, and so on. It doesn't warrant a mention in the conservation report in Appendix 4 of the DVD so was clearly not that earth shattering.
Basically, this is not as cut-and-dried as, say, the tinned plate from Xanten. My advice would be to bear it in mind for the day that something much less equivocal comes to light.
Mike Bishop
