07-17-2011, 08:01 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the Trajan Column contains too many detailed pieces of information for its authors to be totally ignorant about military regalia and therefore letting artistic license override any semblance of reality.
It is possible that the sculptors had access to a limited number of soldiers which they took as models, therefore duplicating those men in great numbers and giving the units a false sense of uniformity, in what I like to call the "Rome Total War" effect. For example, it is totally possible that a few deserving, or particulary sharp, soldiers of several types of units (both legionary and auxilia units, which might have served or not in Dacia) were given leave time to travel to Rome and help as "advisors" and "models" for the sculptors who were about to start working on the column. Sketches would have been made of these soldiers, along with drawings of siege equipment, camp gear, etc. Then, armed with these precious pieces of information, the sculptors would start carving out the scenes, and inserting educated guesses and some artistic license where needed to fill in the gaps and fulfill the wishes/goals of their patron. Therefore, a single individual, could have been "copied and pasted" dozens of time to serve as a "typical" legionary or archer. Hell, if a legionary posted on a frontier in the middle of nowhere can have pieces of equipment mailed to him from his family, then it would be a simple matter to ship half a dozen soldiers on leave to act a models for a commemorative work. You don't have to send a full legion to Rome for that.
As far as the Adamclissi metopes go, I personally think of it as a hybrid of propaganda monument (like the TC) and frontier funerary stelae. Since it was built on the frontier, most probably even while active units were currently garrisoning the area, the sculptors could have had access to a good number of soldiers for their modelling, in similar fashion to the funerary stelae. It could therefore show a more regional, realistic view of the soldiers' dress. At the same time, the propaganda goal could have necessitated a bit artistic license, which could distort some details.
The important thing is that from the uneducated masses' point of view, then and now, they all look like Roman soldiers and are all similar in appearance. The educated eye will stumble upon the differences in detail, but the goal is still reached as far as making these soldiers of Rome instantly recognisable.
The good thing with experimental archaeology/reenacting is that each group (for those, of course, that make the necessary effort) can portray a specific interpretation of the evidence. We can then obtain of full range of possible alternatives, which in turn broaden our understanding of the material culture of the period. Still, even today, the general public will most likely not notice the subtility in the different interpretations (like the difference between a Corbridge A and Newstead segmentata. They all looked identical to me until I actually sat down and started analysing their respective details.) but they can still identify a Roman soldier (same thing for a resident of Rome who might have looked at the TC column in AD150).
People who study a subject for so long tend to forget the big picture. They are so focused on details that are so evident to them that they often refuse to get back to basics. For them, if a particular ridge on a helmet is not present on a sculpture, then it means that the sculptor knew nothing about what he's doing. To me, that's bullshit.
It is possible that the sculptors had access to a limited number of soldiers which they took as models, therefore duplicating those men in great numbers and giving the units a false sense of uniformity, in what I like to call the "Rome Total War" effect. For example, it is totally possible that a few deserving, or particulary sharp, soldiers of several types of units (both legionary and auxilia units, which might have served or not in Dacia) were given leave time to travel to Rome and help as "advisors" and "models" for the sculptors who were about to start working on the column. Sketches would have been made of these soldiers, along with drawings of siege equipment, camp gear, etc. Then, armed with these precious pieces of information, the sculptors would start carving out the scenes, and inserting educated guesses and some artistic license where needed to fill in the gaps and fulfill the wishes/goals of their patron. Therefore, a single individual, could have been "copied and pasted" dozens of time to serve as a "typical" legionary or archer. Hell, if a legionary posted on a frontier in the middle of nowhere can have pieces of equipment mailed to him from his family, then it would be a simple matter to ship half a dozen soldiers on leave to act a models for a commemorative work. You don't have to send a full legion to Rome for that.
As far as the Adamclissi metopes go, I personally think of it as a hybrid of propaganda monument (like the TC) and frontier funerary stelae. Since it was built on the frontier, most probably even while active units were currently garrisoning the area, the sculptors could have had access to a good number of soldiers for their modelling, in similar fashion to the funerary stelae. It could therefore show a more regional, realistic view of the soldiers' dress. At the same time, the propaganda goal could have necessitated a bit artistic license, which could distort some details.
The important thing is that from the uneducated masses' point of view, then and now, they all look like Roman soldiers and are all similar in appearance. The educated eye will stumble upon the differences in detail, but the goal is still reached as far as making these soldiers of Rome instantly recognisable.
The good thing with experimental archaeology/reenacting is that each group (for those, of course, that make the necessary effort) can portray a specific interpretation of the evidence. We can then obtain of full range of possible alternatives, which in turn broaden our understanding of the material culture of the period. Still, even today, the general public will most likely not notice the subtility in the different interpretations (like the difference between a Corbridge A and Newstead segmentata. They all looked identical to me until I actually sat down and started analysing their respective details.) but they can still identify a Roman soldier (same thing for a resident of Rome who might have looked at the TC column in AD150).
People who study a subject for so long tend to forget the big picture. They are so focused on details that are so evident to them that they often refuse to get back to basics. For them, if a particular ridge on a helmet is not present on a sculpture, then it means that the sculptor knew nothing about what he's doing. To me, that's bullshit.
Danny Deschenes
