linothorax and other white cuirases

[Xavi]

Hi all.
It is interesting how many complicate explanations have to be made to explain something easy to explain if we considere other posibilities.

By the way I´m mediterranean, I have seen many Roman sculptures, and my point of wiew as also sculptor is that claiming that the sculptures were "heroical" or invented, means very little knowlege of how difficult is to make a marble sculpture, and how much planing have to be made to keep the diferent shapes. If you want to make a sleeve, you have to do it in purpose. For any artist who is looking just for an "heroic" approach, will be much easier to make a proper musculata than a chainmail that looks like musculata with sleeves...that does not exist.

Also is difficult to understand how, sculptors from different regions (Germany, Turkey, Spain, Britain), in different times show the same kind of armour, in an era with very limited comunications, in diferent positions, just because they try to make something "heroic".




[attachment=11069]Roman_statue_of_Mars.JPG[/attachment]

[attachment=11070]tomb_sulpicius_celsus_standards_cm1.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=11072]P4240288_2014-10-29.JPG[/attachment]

All of them look as really weird "chainmails"...

Glues are a very mediterranean solution used in many many artworks. In the other hand you will see very little quilting on ancient mediterranean cultures.

But if we dislike to see them, we can hide the sculptures. Just can be metal. Lorica Linteam never existed...

[caiusbeerquitius]

Xavi B, by all means learn some archaeological method and logic before you continue debating this. It is horrible and near to physical pain to read your "arguments".

1st: ANY piece of art is the result of a double translation process. Step one: Artist sees something in his environment and translates it in his brain in categories of understanding. Step two: Influenced by his a) capabilities as artist (mason, painter, writer etc.), b) (artistic) convention (language, depiction modes, tradition etc.) c)available material d) cognitive abilities e) personal agenda (etc) a piece of art (text, relief, statue, painting etc. ) is made. It is very difficult to understand and interpret these influences in most cases, in almost all cases it is impossible to get a clear picture of a given historic reality that was the original after which a piece was modeled. To properly interpret the workings of ancient art is a very complicated thing which takes years of study to fully understand. In the course of these interpretations the use of formal logic is mandatory. You have shown frequently in your postings that you lack both, so I actually hardly understand why people still reply to this. LEARN: ART cannot give us something to base a reconstruction on (unless we want to reconstruct the given piece of art itself). Only the objects themselves can allow us to reconstruct them. Such reconstructions can be supported by art, e.g. ads how a piece was probably worn etc. So get it in your head: Depictions of objects are no source for the sum of characteristics of these objects, especially their materiality and construction. To go by these alone is an utter waste of time.

2. Learn more about logic and logic fallacies. Then apply what you learned to your argumentation. If you are not able to do so anyone discussing this with you and trying to keep to logical arguments is frustrated, and IMO wasting their time. Learn more about logic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

If you have read and understood this, you will find out that e.g. your last post above already contains a ridiculous number of these.

[Bryan]

[attachment=11070]tomb_sulpicius_celsus_standards_cm1.jpg[/attachment]

I don't know why you would want to use this as an example of accurate art work. Because it has sleeves? It also has what appears to be a very wide collar that would make most head movements impossible, the hilt of the sword is a bit out of proportion, as are the shoulder doubling of the cuirass.

[Xavi]

Hi Caius

Bulling is not a demostration... just lack of intelligence.

My intention is not to upset any one. In fact these is a free forum and if you don´t want to read my explanations you can just not "click" in this topic...

Probably I have a vague idea of art (actually I´m an art teacher and profesional sculptor) also I have work in arqueological sites in my youth but I´m not here to show who has is longer...I´m just showing that conventional explanations don´t match with archeological remains. (May it will surprise you that sculptures are also archeological remains)

The definition you make of artwork is from a kindergarden school and demostrates that you are the one with little knowlege on that. Maybe I can tell you a little more about.

The fallacy is to ignore things that don´t match our explanations.
Archeology is a science base on speculation, like all other science...later, facts demonstrate if speculations are true.

[Dan Howard]

The main problem with this field of study is that arts graduates have no training or experience in hoplology. It is impossible to correctly interpret the iconographical evidence without a sound background on how weapons and armour function.

[caiusbeerquitius]

See, Xavi B, this is what I mean.

Probably I have a vague idea of art (actually I´m an art teacher and profesional sculptor)

Maybe. But:
Apparently you do not have even a vague idea of interpreting ancient art. Apparently you do not know these well established facts: Most Roman art is copied from Hellenistic art. Especially poses, but also loads of equipment. Much of Roman art recurs to older modes and types of display. Roman art is highly anachronistic. Roman art is made mostly after model books, so similar or identical pieces how up again and again with slight or no variation.
Also the fact that you are a teacher for art does not imply that you are good at what you are doing:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic or https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

also I have work in arqueological sites in my youth but I´m not here to show who has is longer...

This is ridiculous. Also: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

I´m just showing that conventional explanations don´t match with archeological remains. (May it will surprise you that sculptures are also archeological remains)

Why should it surprise me? Explain. I thought I wrote above that all sources, including pictorial evidence, need a decent amount of source criticism and hermeneutics if we want to understand them. In fact this is the major point of what I wrote above. May have slipped your attention. Also you are not saying the truth here. You are not just showing that the "conventional explanations" do not match, you also come up with fantasy explanations and loads of misinterpretations without ever properly answering questions or brining up proper arguments.

The definition you make of artwork is from a kindergarden school and demostrates that you are the one with little knowlege on that. Maybe I can tell you a little more about.

Oh. I kneel down in awe for this wonderful argument. If this is all you have to say to what I wrote above, my case is closed. You could not have better supported my statement in any way. Maybe you can tell me more, but I really, really doubt it. Also:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Nowhere do I give a definition of art. I only talk about what factors influence the genesis of art.

The fallacy is to ignore things that don´t match our explanations.

?

Archeology is a science base on speculation, like all other science...later, facts demonstrate if speculations are true.

I wonder where you got your definition of archaeology from? Most archaeologists I know would heartily disagree. And, by that, most scientists also.

[Vindex]

Gentlemen, please endeavour to remain civil in your discussions. The Forum is not a place to trade insults.

[Xavi]

Hi Caius

Lets see...I will not replay to your other comments because they are out of the theme, and will go to a personal confrontation, that is far away of a place like here.

You say:
Apparently you do not have even a vague idea of interpreting ancient art. Apparently you do not know these well established facts: Most Roman art is copied from Hellenistic art. Especially poses, but also loads of equipment. Much of Roman art recurs to older modes and types of display. Roman art is highly anachronistic. Roman art is made mostly after model books, so similar or identical pieces how up again and again with slight or no variation.

I will just post a couple of well known Roman artworks in both of them the equipment positions and activities are related to Roman world:

[attachment=11074]Altar-of-Domitius-Ahenobarb.jpg[/attachment]

In this famous relief you can see a Roman census, with roman equiped soldiers, a lustratio, etc.etc

[attachment=11075]IMG0036_2.jpg[/attachment]

In this one you can see how they show the detail of a chainmail worn by Romans, not by Greeks. Have a look at any Roman and Greek archeological museum and you will find a big diference and lot of detail in Roman artwork, also in quality of portraits. Romans were always more realistic in they artwork.

In the other hand no Greek sculptures show musculata sleeves....

[caiusbeerquitius]

You are missing my point again. I say that it is very difficult to interpret all this and to see it in its historial context. You need critical method to interpret it.

Great that you bring up the so-called "Domitius-ara" from the Louvre. It has been shown that just there all the groups of figures have been taken from hellenistic grave reliefs, and then were "spiced up" with Roman items. The sequence can in fact be seen very well: First two figures are from one relief, next two figures from one relief, then you have two individual hellenistic soldiers, the part of a procession relief, then an individual Mars figure and so on. You will find these types over and over. It comes in handy that, if you are in the Louvre you can see these Greek / Hellenistic grave reliefs / stelae right in the next room for comparison.
So also the restoration of several parts of this relief was possible, as in fact several of the heads and a number of details were lost and are modern replacements on the base of comparison to their hellenistic models. Read:

H. Froning, Marmor-Schmuckreliefs mit griechischen Mythen im 1. Jh. v. Chr. (1981) 112 ff.
H. Kähler, Seethiasos und Census, MAR 6 (1966).

As far as your second pic goes: How could you say that is "chainmail" if we had no extant objects of such armour? Of course, If I would say those are strangs of woven whalebone you would say that that is nonsense. But from the relief alone it is not possible to determine the materiality. If we would agree that what we see here is "chainmail" could we find out if the rings of this armor were made of copper alloy or steel? If steel, what kind of steel? How much carbon in the steel? Where was the iron gained? I´d say we cannot.
So your argument here is quite circular.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I will support Xavi in his point that muscle cuirasses that have a defined rim and belly lip are not representation of chainmail, they are a representation of a solid breastplate. I have examined by sight and touch a number of these and can confirm they are uniformly smooth to both sight and touch, no evidence of chistled or painted rings or scales and they are totally different in appearance to depictions of troops wearing chain mail or scale armour.

Where I differ from Xavi is that I believe said cuirasses are made from metal, he feels they are textile.

[Xavi]

You are contradicting yourself:

"Roman art is highly anachronistic"
"then were "spiced up" with Roman items"

That´s why I choose the relief. Is clearly Roman in it´s armour and details. I have nice pictures I make in Louvre last summer. I will download later.


"But from the relief alone it is not possible to determine the materiality. If we would agree that what we see here is "chainmail" could we find out if the rings of this armor were made of copper alloy or steel? If steel, what kind of steel? How much carbon in the steel? Where was the iron gained? I´d say we cannot."

Here you will agree that we have to consider other possibilities too.

Going to the point.
How you explain sleeves on musculatas?

The argument is not circular. Denaing the existance of such items, does not make a better argument than triying to understand.

[ValentinianVictrix]

It was not unknown for the Romans to even use existing Roman monumental works for later works, a good example is the Arch of Constantine in France.

I am sure that Xavi must be aware that the Roman's had books from which a whole range of sculputures could be consulted upon and copied. Very much like pattern books that have existed throughout the centuries in Europe.

[Xavi]

Hi Valentinian.
They have not just drawings, also plaster copies and molded pieces.

Most of sculptures were build in clay or wax before making the final marble or bronce ones, with great ammount of detail. Planning was very meticulous.

Also they use to make plaster molds of faces, from death or a live subjects, to make later one very acurate images.

Greeks were looking for ideal canon of beauty, but Romans prefer much more, realistic approach. This include their detail in armour equipment.

[attachment=11076]6407191119_907c9ed116.jpg[/attachment]

[caiusbeerquitius]

You are contradicting yourself:

"Roman art is highly anachronistic"
"then were "spiced up" with Roman items

Please explain where these two statements contradict each other.

Here you will agree that we have to consider other possibilities too.

What? Silver rings? Gold rings? Yes, it could be anything. But it is impossible to find out what it was on base of the depiction.

Going to the point.
How you explain sleeves on musculatas?

I do not. I am not the one making claims here. You made the proposals, so you have to prove your point. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof). So far you were not able to do so. Also your question already includes unproven assumptions. So far I have not seen a single musculata with sleeves. Show me only one, I will immediately accept that they existed. Also, one would first have to prove that depictions of "musculatas" with sleeves are the cause of a presumed actual existence of musculatas with sleeves. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause)

The argument is not circular. Denaing the existance of such items, does not make a better argument than triying to understand.

Of course it is circular. You have the idea that armor of such-and-such a type existed fro you looking at historical depictions(sources), and under this premise you make an eclectic search among the available sources by mostly disregarding their context, and only regarding the context when it helps your hypothesis(https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter). You then produce "evidence" to support your assumption/ idea. That is circular, and it also is teleological, which is an absolute no-go in source interpretation (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question). But that´s not even the circular argument I was referring to. Never mind.

[Dan Howard]

As far as your second pic goes: How could you say that is "chainmail" if we had no extant objects of such armour? Of course, If I would say those are strangs of woven whalebone you would say that that is nonsense. But from the relief alone it is not possible to determine the materiality. If we would agree that what we see here is "chainmail" could we find out if the rings of this armor were made of copper alloy or steel? If steel, what kind of steel? How much carbon in the steel? Where was the iron gained? I´d say we cannot.
So your argument here is quite circular.

Exactly.There are plenty of alternative interpretations. How about a woollen shirt knitted using nalbinding?


Or a corselet made from woven cane?


Or plaited coconut fibre


You can't just pick the one interpretation that fits your pet theory without building a case to dismiss all of the other interpretations. This doesn't actually look much like mail armour at all. It looks more like a sweater my grandmother would knit.


The only reason he says it is "chainmail" is because we have extant physical examples of it. If he wants to do this then he must adhere to the same reasoning with his other images and conclude that they are metal cuirasses, unless he can produce evidence to support his linen/leather theory over the more obvious metal interpretation.