Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion
#18
My two asses:

Caius is right, there are terms and conventions in standard use in archaeological circles. If the terms are to have any meaning we have to defend their meaning diligently.

However, if the goal is to sponsor more accurate pieces of armor, and more accurate re-enacting than the following items (or impressions that include them) cannot ever rationally be considered for the Hasta Pura on the grounds of incomplete/inconclusive data:

Lorica Musculata
subarmalis
pteruges
Focale
The leather satchel
braccae/Feminalia
Several aspects of segmentata, hamata
etc. etc. etc.

I'm sure others could add others.

In fact, if you wanted to, you could nitpick any impression...
We all have to accept conjecture at some point.

And then there are all the difficulties of accidental survivals. Are the objects for which we have the most evidence atypical or anomalous? The art is sometimes at such variance with the evidence that we have to run on one of two assumptions. Either the art is untrustworthy, or the example is anomalous. If it's anomalous what's the virtue of a hasta pura? And everyone here knows my opinions on this matter.

It's the age old dilemna of western epistemology. You base knowledge not merely on what can be known, but on what you can demonstrate. But given an imperfect data set, there are many things which may be true, but can not be demonstrated.

Fortunately archaeology is not a hard science and we have to conjecture or we'd all sit around doing nothing.

I understand the need to make the hasta pura an award for specific reproductions of existing artifacts.

I think that a seperate award for the best reasonable conjecture of a specific item, holding to rules of what can be demonstrated.

This attic explicit and conscientiously tries to emulate the best examples of Roman iconology. Can it be verified? No. but then a lot of stuff simply can't be verified.

I think another award is warranted, but then, to make that worth any more than a "HEY THAT'S COOL!" award, there need to be rules on what will and will not be acceptable. I suppose that that's why there isn't an award like this already. It relies too much on judgment, whereas if the object looks like the original, it looks like the original, making an hasta pura so much easier to award.

Still with the expertise on this board, it seems a plausible alternative.
Theodoros of Smyrna (Byzantine name)
aka Travis Lee Clark (21st C. American name)

Moderator, RAT

Rules for RAT:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules">http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules for posting

Oh! and the Toledo helmet .... oh hell, forget it. :? <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused" />:?
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs Presentation discussion - by tlclark - 08-01-2007, 04:01 PM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Primvs Pavlvs presentation discussion Peroni 7 11,882 01-14-2008, 04:56 PM
Last Post: Chuck Russell
  caiustarquitius - presentation caiusbeerquitius 0 6,748 05-06-2007, 06:34 PM
Last Post: caiusbeerquitius
  Model Presentation caiusbeerquitius 0 6,673 05-18-2006, 05:36 PM
Last Post: caiusbeerquitius

Forum Jump: