2nd/ 3rd century tombstone with captives- poss red tunic?

[Caballo]

Again , new to me. Tombstone of Aelius Septimus (from the Hungarian Nat Museum)
[url:2zvfidcy]http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raid5/hungary/budapest/museums/hungarian_national_museum/rome/sculpture/funerary/stele_reliefs/DSCN6090.JPG[/url]

Underneath the gladius hilt, beneath the green mould, it looks likes a red tunic?
[url:2zvfidcy]http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raid5/hungary/budapest/museums/hungarian_national_museum/rome/sculpture/funerary/stele_reliefs/DSCN6092.JPG[/url]


EDIT: I changed the images to links for those with slow connections and also so the page loads at normal dimensions. - Dan

[aitor iriarte]

Maybe it's red, but he is wearing a muscled cuirass with pterugae.

Aitor

[L. Aufidius Pantera]

I may be blind, but if the red you mean is the red I think i see, then I believe it to be down to the camera and digital imaging making up funny colours to imitate shades - if you enlarge it and look closely you get patches like it all over the stone - in faces, on legs etc... so nothing more than a digital optical illusion...

[Vlad the Impala]

would that be in Budapest?

[Atrectus]

May I ask a favour? Could you please, post a link to such large pics instead of posting them in the forum? They really screw up the thread and oblige to do a lot of scrolling to read the replies.

Thanks

[Daniel S Peterson]

Hmmmm Aitor, you seem to be dismissing this original piece of evidence because the solider wears a muscle cuirass. Are you aware of another very good stele from Hungary of soldiers clearly wearing Niederbieber style helmets also with muscle cuirasses. It is amusing how some archaeologist praise the value of "provincial" monuments for their "accurate" portrayal of Roman military subjects -- until it is something they don't like, like muscle cuirasses used in combat by regular Roman soldiers. One archaeologist has even gone so far as to "redraw" a muscle cuirass from a well-known monument and turn it into a lorica hamata!

I believe that the truth is, the muscle cuirass, properly made to fit the wearer, was an excellent piece of body armor and never went away, and there is a lot of evidence that even regular soldiers could buy or make one, and evidence shows this througout the Principate and Dominate.

The fact that more artifactual evidence has not occured in the archaeological record should be obvious. They are very large, and therefore not easily lost. And if made of a cupric alloy, would also have a lot of valuable metal in them, so would not normally be thrown away. The only reason muscle cuirasses have been found at all, is because in earlier antiquity, it was the practice to included them in the burials of the warriors who owned them. Like in imperial times, I believe none have ever been found in any other contexts. If it had not been for these tomb finds then, no real examples would have ever been found, and certain archaeologists would probably claim that that they were ALL artist convention as they do now about those clearly depicted in so much later Roman art.

BTW, muscle cuirasses are particularly prevalent in the art of the Dominate period you favor. Do you dismiss it all as artistic license too, simply because one hasn't been found yet?

Dan

[aitor iriarte]

Dan, I wasn't dismissing the muscled cuirass!
I was only tryng to tell that whether remained rests of red paint or not, they couldn be used as an evidence for the tunic colour because the muscled cuirass and the pterugae obscured totally the tunic on that relief...
In fact I have a muscled cuirass (unfortunately it doesn't fit me well! ) for my late fourth century officer impression!

Aitor

[Tarbicus]

The problem with these photographs are that they are taken with good cameras (I'm sure) but not that good. Critically, they are taken under very poor lighting. There is as much reason to believe the 'red pigment' is a combination of digital noise at low ASA where most light giving the key light is occluded, and that only leaves a poor very warm light to illuminate that area.

I will only believe that is pigment if a professional photographer lights the relief professionally with a high spec camera, or I see it with my own eyes. Alternatively, if the relief was laser scanned for the raw RGB values of the actual surface, irrespective of lighting in the room.

I've image processed other images like it through various software and have thought "Yes, it is red paint.", and said so in earlier threads. But, after seeing so many, I now think it's purely and simply digital grain/noise under poor lighting conditions.

Just as easily, if you look beneath the spear penetrating the man, you could say there are the remnants of blue-white pigment. If you look at the right side of the cuirass there is also apparent red pigment, as on the right side of his face, and the right side of the most upper right figure's face. Also, there is a pit in the gladius blade with such an apparent red pigmentation. Uncanny it's all below and to the right. It's a mixture of artificial lighting, and camera noise at low ASA in available light IMHO.

The biggest clue is in the edge of the gladius' shadow, which is red (a thin red line). This a common artefact with digital photos in such circumstances. It's a digital artefact, not a manmade one :?

More the shame really.

Cheers.

[Crispvs]

"One archaeologist has even gone so far as to "redraw" a muscle cuirass from a well-known monument and turn it into a lorica hamata!"

Dan,
Could you tell me which sculpture you are referring to here?

Crispvs