04-11-2014, 02:09 PM
Evan, why do you think that the musculata looks late Roman as opposed to others? I'm not disagreeing (I know very little of late Rome in general), but curious as to why you think there is a distinction in form from, say, high Empire to late Empire.
As far as I remember, most of the depictions I've seen from, say, the paintings from Dura Europos that depict officers in musculata (image attached) seem to be depicting the traditional, anatomical (as opposed to short) cuirass. The only difference that I can see is the sash wrapped around the waist to signify officer status (I forget the word atm...zonum? zona? something along the lines) is much wider than say, those depicted on earlier statues/paintings. I've read that many interpret this wide sash as being imbedded as part of the cuirass itself (such as D'Amato, I believe), and have taken that along with some other random details depicted to mean that the cuirass saw widespread use throughout the later Roman period, and of course, was undoubtedly a leather garment (
).
As far as I remember, most of the depictions I've seen from, say, the paintings from Dura Europos that depict officers in musculata (image attached) seem to be depicting the traditional, anatomical (as opposed to short) cuirass. The only difference that I can see is the sash wrapped around the waist to signify officer status (I forget the word atm...zonum? zona? something along the lines) is much wider than say, those depicted on earlier statues/paintings. I've read that many interpret this wide sash as being imbedded as part of the cuirass itself (such as D'Amato, I believe), and have taken that along with some other random details depicted to mean that the cuirass saw widespread use throughout the later Roman period, and of course, was undoubtedly a leather garment (
).
Alexander
