RomanArmyTalk
Iconographical interpretation - Printable Version

+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Reenactment (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Roman Re-Enactment & Reconstruction (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: Iconographical interpretation (/showthread.php?tid=24413)

Iconographical interpretation - Dan Howard - 11-02-2014

This is to try and show why it is a waste of time relying on iconographical evidence alone to study armour. Here are two photos. One is a patch of mail I made from alternating rows of flat and round-sectioned links. The other is armour found in the South Pacific. Even with photos it is hard to tell them apart so how are we supposed to tell when they are depicted in a painting or sculpture?

Iconographical interpretation - Renatus - 11-03-2014

There seems to be some information lacking here. What are we talking about? Structure? Materials?

Iconographical interpretation - Dan Howard - 11-03-2014

Apologies. The South Pacific armour is the woven cane corselet from the other thread.

Iconographical interpretation - Urselius - 11-03-2014

Point taken, there is the 'banded mail' shown on many 13th century illustrations, which was just a stylised way of depicting standard mail..

Iconographical interpretation - Renatus - 11-03-2014

Quote:Apologies. The South Pacific armour is the woven cane corselet from the other thread.
Thank you. Do I take it that this armour is woven using continuous strands of cane, giving the same effect as a knitted woollen garment?

Iconographical interpretation - Nathan Ross - 11-03-2014

Generally speaking I'd agree, Dan - but in this case I'm not sure that your example doesn't support the opposing view.


Quote:so how are we supposed to tell when they are depicted in a painting or sculpture?

What is it we can't 'tell' from this? What the armour looked like? On the contrary - the sculpture seems to give a very accurate impression of the real thing!

What we can't tell is what it's made from - if we didn't know its origin we might assume it was metal.

I don't know whether this shows that using sculptural representations to show us what armour might have looked like or how it might have been worn is a 'waste of time' though...

Iconographical interpretation - Dan Howard - 11-03-2014

Neither of the above examples are sculptures; they are both photos of real armour. One is mail made from steel links, the other is a corselet made from woven cane. My position is that, in a sculpture, it would be impossible to tell the difference between them. If you saw an old sculpture on New Guinea of someone wearing that armour and we didn't have any extant examples of cane armour and no texts describing cane armour in that region, it would be easy to mistakenly assume that they had access to mail.

Iconographical interpretation - Dan Howard - 11-03-2014

In this example all that has changed is the position of the light. Both photos are of the same armour - one with the lighting on the left and one with the lighting on the right. It is a good example of the "banded" mail that Martin mentioned.

Iconographical interpretation - Dan Howard - 11-03-2014

Quote:Thank you. Do I take it that this armour is woven using continuous strands of cane, giving the same effect as a knitted woollen garment?
Yep. I think it came from Irian Jaya.

Edit: here is a close-up of a different example

Iconographical interpretation - Renatus - 11-03-2014

What interests me about the cane corselet is that the 'rows' run vertically, as frequently (I will not say 'universally', as I do not claim an exhaustive knowledge of the iconography of Roman mail) seems to be the case in Roman sculpture. On the other hand, reconstructions of Roman mail usually (a similar caveat applies) have the rings running horizontally. Does this have to be so or is it simply what we have come to expect? Has the Roman sculptor made a mistake, in which case we might have to consider why he did so, or does he have something to tell us about how the rings in Roman mail were aligned?

Iconographical interpretation - Dan Howard - 11-03-2014

Suppose someone dug this up on a site...

[Image: 73.jpg]


... and the only similar physical example in the archaeological record was this.

[Image: 4854353486_b1553238fc_o.jpg]

It would be an easy mistake to interpret that sculpture as an engraved bronze helmet like the one here since they both date to the same time period and were found in the same region. The only reason we know it is depicting a boars tusk helmet is because physical examples have been found and there is a detailed description of one in the Iliad. For a long time it was thought that Homer imagined them until they started turning up at sites.

Iconographical interpretation - Dan Howard - 11-03-2014

Quote:What interests me about the cane corselet is that the 'rows' run vertically, as frequently (I will not say 'universally', as I do not claim an exhaustive knowledge of the iconography of Roman mail) seems to be the case in Roman sculpture. On the other hand, reconstructions of Roman mail usually (a similar caveat applies) have the rings running horizontally. Does this have to be so or is it simply what we have come to expect? Has the Roman sculptor made a mistake, in which case we might have to consider why he did so, or does he have something to tell us about how the rings in Roman mail were aligned?
Mail loses a lot of its protective capacity if it is hung the wrong way - with the rings stretched open - but there are rare examples of mail made like this.
[Image: rethinking_pitt-rivers_image_collection_...e=orig.jpg]

Iconographical interpretation - Crispianus - 11-03-2014

Quote:Neither of the above examples are sculptures; they are both photos of real armour. One is mail made from steel links, the other is a corselet made from woven cane. My position is that, in a sculpture, it would be impossible to tell the difference between them. If you saw an old sculpture on New Guinea of someone wearing that armour and we didn't have any extant examples of cane armour and no texts describing cane armour in that region, it would be easy to mistakenly assume that they had access to mail.

I would agree that without some other evidence to support the iconography its not possible to tell the material used in the original, other then in very general terms and assuming that an original was used for the model in the first place.
For example a shoe may be plant or animal fibre, animal skin, wood or metal, or any combination, or an item of clothing could be made from animal or vegetable material, wool, flax, silk, cotton or metal and there would be no way to tell from the image alone.... at least not that I know of ;-)

Iconographical interpretation - Renatus - 11-03-2014

Quote:Suppose someone dug this up on a site...

[Image: 73.jpg]


... and the only similar physical example in the archaeological record was this.

[Image: 4854353486_b1553238fc_o.jpg]

It would be an easy mistake to interpret that sculpture as an engraved bronze helmet like the one here since they both date to the same time period and were found in the same region. The only reason we know it is depicting a boars tusk helmet is because physical examples have been found and there is a detailed description of one in the Iliad. For a long time it was thought that Homer imagined them until they started turning up at sites.
These examples illustrate very well my general approach to iconographic and literary evidence, namely, that we ignore them at our peril. Both the sculpture and the bronze helmet seek to depict the boar's tusk helmet and Homer has been proved right. A kernel of truth lies behind many an apparently inexplicable description. Our task is to try to discover what it is. Speculation is permissible, as long as it is acknowleged for what it is, until something comes up that confirms or disproves it. Take Richard III; he was not the hunch-backed monster of Tudor propaganda but he did have a spinal deformity.