Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Painted lorica segmentata ?
#16
" same way that there is no reason to believe that that they wore pink feather boas." Speaks to my point. It is not at all like that. Musculata seems to have been painted some times or at least decent evidence for it. Painting of armor in history has a long history and is effective. We have rather limited direct evidence of how the surface of the armor was protected in Roman times. So while it might not be probable it is far from pink feather boas that have no logical or historical reason for being used.

The proboblem is when you presume something to strongly you tend to miss the evidence in the other direction if there is any. So while I am not making the case that segmentata was painted it is far from ludicrous to suggested that there is slight possibility it was. More so than say pink feather boas or modern powdercoating Smile
Patrick Lawrence

[url:4ay5omuv]http://www.pwlawrence.com[/url]
Reply
#17
<speaking with moderator hat on> Grateful if we could dial down the debate here? Sulla, I'm charitably assuming that you don't know that MIke Bishop wrote the main works on Lorica Segmentata as well as many other books and papers. I'd really recommend it and it is very kindly available for free together with volume 2 -http://www.scribd.com/doc/3961788/Lorica-Segmentata-Volume-I-A-Handbook-of-Articulated-Roman-Plate-Armour.
<takes moderator hat off>

Coming back to painted armour, it would also be worthwhile reading the very good value The Carlisle Millenium Project, Vol. 2: Finds , published by Oxford Archaeology North, 2009, and available from Oxbow Book by Christine Howard-Davis, with contributions from, inter alia, Mike Bishop.

It would be particularly interesting to hear any updates on the finds below from Carlisle as the conservation analysis may now have clarified the initial findings? The comments on painted armour are heavily caveatted in the report ("seem to suggest...could have.").

Quoting from the book:-

"Conservation has suggested that some fragments of armour were painted black (Pl166) 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 nor prudent to stand out in the landscape". ( Howard-Davis et al, 2009, The Carlisle Millenium Project, Volume 2: Finds, Chapter 15 A Synthesis , page 496)

"There are, in addition, at least 14 fragments of ferrous plate, which can be identified as body armour, but are of uncertain type...None add significantly to the conclusions drawn except for a few fragments where conservation seems to suggest that some of the armour could have been painted black (see for instance Appendix 4, Iron 2757, one of two fragments from deposit 6272, associated with Building 5689 in Period 4c)." (ibid, Chapter 17, The Roman Militaria, M.C. Bishop and C. Howard-Davis, page 694).
[Image: wip2_r1_c1-1-1.jpg] [Image: Comitatuslogo3.jpg]


aka Paul B, moderator
http://www.romanarmy.net/auxilia.htm
Moderation in all things
Reply
#18
If I remember well, the armours were more probably tinned than painted (but not always). Who was the classical author that said "their armours were the most shiny possible" or something like that?

I can't remember Sad

A black painted armour in the age of bling seems to me very strange. Maybe they painted it for storing?
[Image: inaciem-bandeau.png]
Reply
#19
Quote:There is absolutely no evidence that lorica segmentata was ever painted.

Quote:"Conservation has suggested that some fragments of armour were painted black . . ."

"There are, in addition, at least 14 fragments of ferrous plate, which can be identified as body armour, but are of uncertain type...None add significantly to the conclusions drawn except for a few fragments where conservation seems to suggest that some of the armour could have been painted black . . ."
Does "body armour . . . of uncertain type" exclude lorica segmentata? And does "conservation has suggested . . ." and "conservation seems to suggest . . ." constitute "absolutely" no evidence that lorica segmentata was ever painted?
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#20
Does tin-plate blacken with age? If so, could it be confused with black paint?
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#21
Quote:Does tin-plate blacken with age? If so, could it be confused with black paint?
Can't iron come out of the forge in a blackened state as well? I'm trawling through Sim for a specific reference but I think it would have to be polished to become shiny in the first place, and I'm sure I've read somewhere that armour that was not so polished would be protected to some degree from corrosion (although not as much as tinning would provide).

Black painted armour, as others have noted doesn't sound especially durable (the shifting plates would surely wear any paint away fairly quickly). If stealth was a factor, could they not simply throw on a cloak?
Reply
#22
Quote:mindset that shuts off even researching the subject to not be good.

The subject has been researched. No painted segs have been found. 'nuff said, I'd have thought?
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#23
To blacken and protect iron, nothing better to quench it.
But! Painting armors, just partially could be a solution for those findindgs of paint. Just painting some pictures, like tatoos. Could it be?
[Image: inaciem-bandeau.png]
Reply
#24
To respond to Dan's comment, I have tinned some items using what presumably would have been Roman.......melting the tin on a surface and wiping. I have even tried modern electroplating. Irrespective of the method, the tin turns first dark brown and then black like charcoal. However, the tarnishing is not easy and takes a long time.

Secondly, armor could have been left forge blackened from the interior because it would protect it from sweat or any other moisture.


With respect to painted armor, anything is possible with the Romans. Every time you turn around they put elements together you would not think likely. However, I must agree that if you are going to recreate or discuss armor AND based on the current evidence there is none for painted Roman armor. Its possible but many things are possible BUT because something is possible does not mean it existed.

It was stated that there is some evidence for painted musculata? Where? Just because artwork had to be painted to represent musculata does not mean the real thing would have been painted. Even if a statue, like that proposed of the Prima Porta where the musculata literally has red paint on it, does not necessarily represent reality. In an open environment with light a statue with red and blue paint against a white background will show strongly relative to a statue painted in light gray to represent silver with yellow accents to represent gilding. Unless the statues are covered in metal, paint does not have a sheen or at least their paint mostly likely would have not.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)


Paolo
Reply
#25
Quote:
mcbishop post=339825 Wrote:There is absolutely no evidence that lorica segmentata was ever painted.

Quote:"Conservation has suggested that some fragments of armour were painted black . . ."

"There are, in addition, at least 14 fragments of ferrous plate, which can be identified as body armour, but are of uncertain type...None add significantly to the conclusions drawn except for a few fragments where conservation seems to suggest that some of the armour could have been painted black . . ."
Does "body armour . . . of uncertain type" exclude lorica segmentata? And does "conservation has suggested . . ." and "conservation seems to suggest . . ." constitute "absolutely" no evidence that lorica segmentata was ever painted?
Not sure I see any contradiction here. Jenny Jones, the conservator, thought there might have been traces of paint on what might have been body armour. If that was indeed the case, there are a million and one ways in which that could have occurred, but I don't see that as evidence that lorica segmentata was painted. If somebody chooses to speculate that that might have been the case, all well and good. It does not pass my criteria for 'evidence' in this case, though. There was only a small amount of segmentata amongst the Millennium finds in comparison to the armguard and scale fragments, so on numerical (possibly even statistical, although so far as I am aware no such work was done on this point) grounds alone it seems an unlikely interpretation.

Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply
#26
Titus Manlius Verus wrote:
In fact, I believe that there is a description where Josephus describes the legion's armor as thousands of blindingly silver lights when they assembled for a pay parade during the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. For some unusual reason, I cannot find that description anywhere on the internet.

The Roman 'pay parade' you refer to is described somewhere in Josephus' "Jewish War". I think it was intended to be some sort of moral boost for the Roman army, who were having a hard time of it.
Apart from 'milk' (i.e. casein-based) paints, the Romans also used Tempura paints, where the binding agent was egg white. You are quite right, though, neither of these would adhere to metal surfaces and would simply wash off the first time it rained.
Mike Thomas (Caratacus)
visne scire quod credam? credo orbes volantes exstare.
Reply
#27
I am going to step on dangerous ground here and cite a modern example to compare to an ancient practice. IF segmentata were
painted at some point it does not mean that they were WORN painted. It may just be a shipment/storage and preservation method as if in the future someone tried to argue that military rifles of the 20th century went into battle coated with cosmoline.
John Kaler MSG, USA Retired
Member Legio V (Tenn, USA)
Staff Member Ludus Militus https://www.facebook.com/groups/671041919589478/
Owner Vicus and Village: https://www.facebook.com/groups/361968853851510/
Reply
#28
That may be. However, during the principate, wasn't most armor was produced in-house by the legions themselves? If so, the armor would have had almost no transport distance. Even if some armor was produced from private sources and had to be transported, it wouldn't have been transported far enough to justify the time-consuming process of painting the armor and the even more time-consuming process of chipping off the paint and getting the armor back to parade quality. Some people make it sound like armor was produced in Egypt and transported to Britain. It's rather unfeasible that the Roman army would risk damaging equipment (imagine paint accidentally getting paint in a segmentata hinge) just to avoid some rust that a milite would love to buff out. ;-)

Additionally, tinning does a fantastic job keeping the rust off.

[attachment=7454]72575.jpg[/attachment]

I believe this helmet was found in a river?


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Tyler

Undergrad student majoring in Social Studies Education with a specialty in world history.

"conare levissimus videri, hostes enimfortasse instrumentis indigeant"
(Try to look unimportant-the enemy might be low on ammunition).
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  About the three types of armor Lorica Segmentata? Leoshenlong 2 603 04-21-2021, 07:52 PM
Last Post: Crispianus
  New find of lorica segmentata mcbishop 18 3,072 11-21-2020, 02:05 PM
Last Post: Simplex
  why lorica segmentata uses very thin hinges? Leoshenlong 3 644 10-27-2020, 05:31 PM
Last Post: Leoshenlong

Forum Jump: