Monuments etc

[Anonymous]

If you have an artifact which matches an illustration on a monument, mosaic or painting ... what credence should be given to the other items depicted where no items have been found ?<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
<br>
Conal <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Very good question, very difficult answer..<br>
I suppose it depends on the character of the artwork. Some depict allegorical, legendary or mythical themes, and some others depict historical events.<br>
However I think that the weapons and armour displayed are generally an accurate, or at least a conventionally acceptable way to depict existing equipment. Maybe idealized equipment, but equipment nevertheless.<br>
The uncontournable and very mysterious Trajan's Column is there to prove it: the cross-braced helmets depicted on the column "did not exist" until some were found. Not under the ground, incidentally, but in museums storerooms and private colections.<br>
The segmented armour copied from the column was fancyful and inaccurate, until the finds at Corbridge and Newstead allowed an accurate reconstruction of several --but not all-- types of segmented cuirasses.<br>
The "Hollywood" or "Praetorian" helmet displayed on many sculptures "was not attested in the archaeological record", as late as Peter Connolly's "Greece and Rome at War", until someone figured out the Guisborough helmet looked pretty much like a "praetorian" helmet, and until cheek guards looking very exactly similar --down to the decoration on them-- to those on the "praetorian" sculptures (like the Louvre relief) were found all over the place..<br>
Interpretation or the sculptural evidence can allow in my opinion, a better understanding of ancient armour and weapons.<br>
And I speak here from personal experience, but year after year, I've seen in the last three decades "imaginary" or "not attested archaeologically" military equipment pop up all over the place..<br>
The problem again lies in a lack of interdisciplinary studies: the ancient art specialists will be very good at explaining the allegorical or mythical character of a sculpture, for instance, buit they generally won't be able to describe accurately the military gear they see on it.<br>
Conversely, the arms specialists will tend to focus on details about armement without looking at the general picture. I reckon I am in the second category, although I am making an effort.. <!-- <br>
But if you take a long, hard look at the sculptures, painting and mosaics of the period, you'll see things.<br>
I did.<br>
Rejecting them out of hand is counterproductive, IMHO.<br>
I'll demonstrate some of that with a few pictures, soon as I find the time. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

HR Russell Robinsons seminal book ( got mine for £6 six years ago !!!) has a section of the Pergamon monument showing a mail shirt and fastenings which I have seen repeated in reconstructions. This is dated to 180BC and is Greek. I have assumed that the Greeks did not use mail and that this either illustrated a Roman or Celtic panoply.<br>
<br>
There are two sword hilts illistrated. One which is for a straight sword of indeterminable length but the attachments seem to indicate Roman suspension rings but the hilt is not a three part affair but look very much like the daggers from the Pompeii Gladiator school.<br>
<br>
The other is a birds head affair.<br>
<br>
What credence should/can they be given as a reasonable or correct in light of the mail beeing rendered correctly ?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Some credence, I think. I haven't seen that part of the relief but the first weapon decribed could be an early gladius or a pugio and the one with the bird's head handle could be a Kopis/Falcata type of sword, or maybe a parazonium, the ceremonial sword carried by high ranking roman officers.<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

i will see if i can scan it in & post it.<br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
Conal <p></p><i></i>