Evidence of painted/dyed armor

[Alexand96]

I bring this subject up not necessarily as a point of debate at all, but hopefully as a means of clarification.

I have read that most would agree here that roman armor, particularly musculata, would have been painted or dyed. The Romans loved gaudy colors, and we find traces of these colors on statuary (such as the Augustus Prima Porta).

Without necessarily delving into leather vs. bronze debates which I've been reading through with great interest, I wanted to ask if anyone could clarify this for me:

Do we have evidence on actual Roman armor (any armor)for paint or dyes? And if so, how would this have worked, would the painted/dyed piece have to have been repainted or dyed often to keep its aesthetic allure, similar to the constant polishing of a segmentata?

Has anyone tried reconstructing painted/dyed armor to experiment to see which work best?

Alexander

[RelPel]

Hi Alex.

I am working with leather. I can say, that there are more types how to make leather colorfull. In middle ages, the best wegetable tanned leather was, when it was the brightest (other types of leather are always bright). So, if we can make bright weg tanned leather, we can make it with some color, using some colorant in tanning tea. Then you just dont need to repaint it. But you can make this leather darker, and then you will need some kazein paint or something like that. I dont know, how this kazein paints work, but i think that you just have to repaint it sometimes.

http://web.archive.org/web/2007120310514.../parts.htm

On this link you can read lots of useful informations about musculata, there is something about painting/dyeing too.

vale

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I could be wrong, but I recall mention there was a find recently in England of possibly painted armour. Ter was a thread on here, that also mentioned leather cheek pieces for a helmet, IIRC

[Alexand96]

On this link you can read lots of useful informations about musculata, there is something about painting/dyeing too.

Marek, don't see a link, but I would be very interested to read that, thanks.

I could be wrong, but I recall mention there was a find recently in England of possibly painted armour.

Gaius, I saw that too when I was searching for more info about this topic. I could be wrong, but I think the finding is still in its preliminary stages...they think the armor was painted black!! Which from everything else I've read is supposed to be kind of a Roman no-no (color of mourning etc.). I haven't read about the leather cheek pieces yet though.

Thanks guys

ALexander

[RelPel]

It is not working so copy that link and put into your browser. That link is UP in my first post.

[Matthew Amt]

Avete!

The reference to black-painted armor is from the Carlisle report, but it seems pretty dubious. It mentions several fragments that *appear* to be painted black, but it does not say why this thought to be paint rather than forge-blackening. Only one piece is shown in a photo, and it could very well be the INside of a plate. So unless there was some sort of deeper analysis that I missed, I don't think this can be used as evidence for the OUTside of a lorica segmentata being painted black.

It might be hard to separate a discussion of dyeing and painting from a discussion of materials, since metal can't be dyed. There are already threads about painted armor, but I don't think any of them conclude that painted armor was *common* among the Romans. It seems that much of the debate centers around the interpretation of painted *sculpture*, and what those colors might mean.

It's complicated!

Matthew

[Alexand96]

It's complicated!

Yep,

I've spent much of the past few days reading everything I could find in relation to the lorica musculata, which is what originally drew my attention to paint and dye on armor. This morning I felt that I had satisfied my own curiosity sufficiently. Now I'm questioning everything I thought this morning...and I feel like I need a drink

Cheers

Alexander