New CLASSIS-soldier (!!) tombstone discovered in Italy

[drsrob]

Tarbicus,

an example for a cingululm worn over a cuirass is shown on the famous Louvre relief - the soldier on the very left:



Greets - Uwe

If I'm not mistaken, that portion of the reliëf has been restored. The break-line on detailed photographes includes everything that makes this cuirass different from the center one.

[Daniel S Peterson]

I would agree that the sculpted naval strongly suggests this is a muscle cuirass. As for short, straight edged muscle cuirasses, virtually all of them on Trajan's Column are depicted this way.

It should be noted that the several "common " soldiers on the intercissa relief all wearing muscle cuirasses also have very similar lappets around the bottom.

John, there is little doubt the Romans possessed all manner of resins, pitch, laquers and paints that would waterproof rawhide. The so called parchment face of the Dura Europas scutum is in fact a "thin" rawhide, and I am sure the paint which covered it helped keep it dry. The fact that it has been discovered that the Augusta Prima Porta cuirass was garishly painted suggests it may have been rawhide with the metal figures attached.

Another material which muscle cuirasses could have been made of is felt, and there is at least one account specifically stating that subarmali were made of felt, though certain Roman reenactors who wear them usually make them out of quilted cloth for which I believe there is no literary evidence.

Dan

[Uwe Bahr]

Salve TNarcher,

in the heat of the discussion one missed to deal with your impressive sketch. I find it very beautiful and it looks really professional to me. Are you a book Illustrator or do You illustrate comics? Anyhow, I have the feeling that I saw Your strong style of drawing already.

With full admiration - Uwe

[mcbishop]

Well he's now got a sort of official web page of his own. Inexplicably, they claim 'The first-ever image of a soldier in the Ancient Roman navy has surfaced' which is, of course, slightly wide of the mark.

Mike Bishop

[Dan Diffendale]

Very exciting!

They say his heir is Cocneus, but it looks like a G to me: Cognatus? But of course they have the advantage of being able to inspect it firsthand.
I think the ]N IIX must be a]n(nis) IIX, which would be how long he served -- in which case the name should be finished, making this fellow not an optio: rather, the optio Capito of the liburnian Aurata and Cocneus/Cognatus his heir f(ecerunt) -- they made it. Capito should be nominative, I think, and you'd expect the name of the deceased to be in the dative; perhaps it's abbreviated for Capitoni, or maybe his name was Capitus after all and he was an optio. I wish I were at home with my notes!

Someone mentioned square muscle cuirasses earlier: all those that have been found date somewhat earlier, ca. 4th C. BCE. They seem to be squared off at the bottom in order to accomodate the broad bronze belt worn by the Samnites and other Italic tribes.
A few examples on my site.
Also, I have some Italic muscle cuirasses for comparison.

[Daniel S Peterson]

Danno,
I don't think anyone meant the abreviated Samnite syle, but instead, a complete muscle cuirasses that ends in an abrupt horizontal edge just below the naval instead of the longer, "classic" type contoured to the lower abdomen and nearly reaching the groin area. These are depicted quite often in Roman Imperial art, and often claimed to be "cavalry" cuirasses as their shortness allows the wearer to ride a horse without the restriction a longer cuirass would cause. The center figure in the Louvre "Praetorians" relief wears one, and the style is commonly shown on Trajan's column as well. There is also a 3-4 century B.C. one from Italy which survives and is mentioned in a previous post.
Dan

[Praefectusclassis]

N IIX must be a]n(nis) IIX

That's what I was thinking too. The IIX is clearly a number, making that the logical interpretation, and you are correct about the consequences too.
In the 1st century, the deceased is usually in the nominative, but it can still be Capito, see IMB17 (Caius Romanius Capito) and IMB168 (Valerius Capito).

[Caballo]

"They say his heir is Cocneus, but it looks like a G to me: Cognatus? But of course they have the advantage of being able to inspect it firsthand.
I think the ]N IIX must be a]n(nis) IIX, which would be how long he served -- in which case the name should be finished, making this fellow not an optio: rather, the optio Capito of the liburnian Aurata and Cocneus/Cognatus his heir f(ecerunt) -- they made it. Capito should be nominative, I think, and you'd expect the name of the deceased to be in the dative; perhaps it's abbreviated for Capitoni, or maybe his name was Capitus after all and he was an optio. "

Possibly dumb question- so does this mean that this could be an optio's monument to his (or a)centurion (or senior officer) who had made him his heir- so solving the paludamentum and gladius position? Or is he still an optio?


Cheers

Britannicus

[Praefectusclassis]

It's hard to imagine someone not his heir and the heir together setting up a monument, F(ecerunt) as Danno suggested. It would normally be x et y, h(eredes) (heirs) f(ecerunt). However, as heres is clearly legible on the inscription, it can only be one heir, Cocneus/Cognatus (need to look in the 'big book of cognomina', that might help). Capito, optio de liburna Aurata must therefore be part of the description of the deceased.

[hansvl]

Hi Jasper,

I have been going over the inscription a few times too. There are a few things that aren't really clear to me. In almost all cases if a rank is mentioned in the inscription the force in which the man served is placed in the genitive. Like the common reference miles legionis y. Only in a few cases I have seen the use of a preposition, and then it's always ex + ablative.
Here it is the preposition de + ablative (liburna aurata), meaning more 'from' (not 'of') than 'out of' (ex). It replaces the more expected phrasing opt(io) liburnae Auratae. What could be the meaning of using this phrasing? Or am I only seeing ghosts.

The number IIX is also an uncommon way to describe 8 (VIII), but not impossible. Could it really not be anything else?

The first letters are also puzzling me, but I have no clear answer (yet).

Greets,

Hans

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Hans.
When naval troops refer to their ship, both genitive, either preposition + ablative or just the ablative is used. The only difference 'ex' could make is that it more explicitly points to veterans.
I have no clue as to what else IIX could be. You should never be surprised by strange ways of writing in military inscriptions. It happens...

[Antonius Lucretius]

This site on the muscled cuirass is great. Close up of imperial sculptures at last!
However I am not really convinced by the arguments for a semi rigid cuirass on the Prima Porta statue. I think it's just a sculptor's trick to make it more elegant: Augustus is in the classic pose of leaning on one hip, which gives that classic curve on the torso. For having drawn a few, this posture, which is very natural, is not so elegant once you fit a rigid cuirass on the character.
However again, I can't deny there are those strange hinges..
However furthermore, that subarmalis above the corinthian helmet seen on another sculpture seem definitely rigid on the abdominal part..
The strange underarm flap is also very interesting. It could be a sweat absorbing pad. Also interesting is the fact that if you were rich enough you could afford a tailored tunic..
The close up of the pteryges (three rows) will hopefully help reenactors abandon the idea of a single row.. It also appears more and more --to me at least-- that pteryges could be made of linen (the Prima Porta statue) or leather, probably for lower ranks.
A mention is also made of "someone" postulating the existence of a separate set of pteryges worn over the cuirass. That someone is me. The proof (?) can be seen of the tombstone of Severus, in Istambul, as well as on a third C.AD standard sarcophagus depicting a classic "battle with barbarians". The central figure --a general whose face wasn't carved out-- is clearly wearing a short muscled cuirass --essential on horseback-- over a subarmalis with round lappets and pteryges. An additional set of pteryges is worn over the lot, mixing up with the officer's sash, obviously providing further protection to the lower abdomen. The round lappets can be seen under that row of pteryges. I think it can be seen in John Warry's "Warfare in the Classical World".
Actually, the first picture that seem to show this kind of system --pteryges over the cuirass-- comes from the macedonian royal tombs of Vergina.
One of the frescoes represents very accurately different types of weapons and armour, most of it archaeologically attested: round shields, the two kinds of sword used by Macedonians (straight edged sword and kopis/falcata) a regular linen cuirass and another one (probably linen too)that is still a total enigma to me: not only the shoulder guards are weird, but the upper row of pteryges is attached at mid torso, leaving the rigid --visible-- part of the cuirass covering basically the upper torso. I wish I could post that one but I'm still out of a scanner..
This last one could be the mysterious "hemithorax".

[Tarbicus]

The so called parchment face of the Dura Europas scutum is in fact a "thin" rawhide,

Bishop & Coulston (Roman Military Equipment), and Simon James, say it is parchment. Where did you get that information please Dan?

Cheers.

[MARCENTIUS]

In a world where the sculptors of Trajan's Column were quite capable of putting mail texture onto the surface of lorica seg, confusion between muscle (whether they be of metal, hide, or anything else) and mail cuirasses could easily arise and the hellenising influences that lurked behind all representational art was capable of producing some unusual mutants. We have to remember that even the best sculptural reliefs (like Annaius Daverzus) are not photographs and we don't even know that these were done from life, or the degree of knowledge on the part of the sculpor. Are those scales or lappets? Does the artist have time (or even the inclination) to care?

All I'm saying is that it could indeed be a muscled cuirass, but it could equally be a mail cuirass. We can't tell from the sculpture, only speculate. Informed speculation is a worthwhile pursuit, but it is nevertheless speculation, not proof or fact.

Dear Mr. Bishop,
I wonder myself that it is still possible today to be confused about the details in Roman sculpture, and to speak about convention in art. If the sculptors of Trajan's column represented chain mail together with what we call segmentata - because it was never called so by Romans - it is why those soldiers on that scene from the Column wore such composite armour, as well as the Catafract of Dura Europos or other subjects in the Roman Army. Composite armour was used before, during and after the fall of the Roman Empire, and I do not see what it is wrong in artistic representations where the subjects are more or less strongly Hellenised. In a world where the most part of life was subject to Hellenism, where
half of the inhabitants of the Empire dressed like Greeks, spoke in Greek and where the Eastern soldiers wore equipment partially derived from their old hellenic tradition, do You really think that the Roman army was not subject to the same rules?
In India in the XVIII century they still wore catafract armour with muscled cuirasses (see H. R. Robinson, "Oriental armour" plate XVII) which was a tradiction dating back to the invasion of Alexander The Great. So explain to me why, If You believe in Convention why are the Romans, who were the direct heirs of the Greek Kingdoms, not able to wear such kind of armour, while Indians and Sassanians (s. Nikonorov, The armies of Bactria I p. 58) can?
The best sculptural reliefs are a true pictures, because there are numerous occasions when the sculpture can be supported by archaeological evidence or descriptions in the sources.
About our naval Optio. Firstly it was painted, so we have to judge it from the Roman point of view: if we could seen the original colours, then there would be no arguments today over what type of armour was being used.
Even so, just by looking at the photograph of the cippus, it is possible to see that the Roman artist was very attentive in the representation of equipment details.
The comparison of the belt crossing his right shoulder with the bag of tools found on the body of the nauta of Herculaneum (who was also wearing a leather protection like some soft subarmalis) is very significant: and the armour, with its kremasmata of thick metal, reveals the use of leather body armour (it is better to have leather armour in case You fall in water) with a border of metallic lappets. Note that the sculptor depicted very strong lappets, in contrast with the thin surface of the leather body armour. Then, how is it possible for a mail armour to show a belly botton ?
Note also the pilum with the two weights like other monuments of first or second century.
Best wishes
Dr. Raffaele D’Amato

[Tarbicus]

Am I the only one who can see that the iron shaft of the 'pilum' doesn't line up with the balls at the top of the 'possible optio's staff', and could just as easily be a part of the surround? The centre line of the 'pilum' shaft doesn't even meet the centre line of the balls. Everyone's praising the artist for his great detail, etc, but then he goes and sculpts a bent/used pilum? :? I don't buy it yet, nor do I buy the muscled cuirass. If the artist could sculpt a very bent pilum, he could very well sculpt a belly button into what was to be painted hamata. Notice also that the blatantly obvious line of the pectoral continues in a line to midway down the upper arm, not in a vertical one to the shoulder, which is more in keeping with the line of squamata shoulder pieces. Note also that the lappets seem to continue onto the upper chest, which is more in keeping with squamata. I'm sorry, but when you compare this tombstone with the Camomile Street Soldier, this artist just isn't anywhere near as good.

Also, has anyone tried swimming in a leather cuirass? In practical terms, I'm certain it was just as efficient a flotation device as hamata, and just as easy to remove while you're panicking and sinking, as well as the cingulum and helmet. The scutum would likely be the only thing floating after 3 seconds. Basing the armour on whether a marine will sink or float is like saying legionaries were trained not to stand in the front rank because it's dangerous.

Surely the simple rule was; "Try not to fall off the ship!"

Cheers.