09-15-2009, 05:03 PM
Dear Mr. D'Amato,
Whow! I would never have believed it possible to pick up a book on one day and have a debate with the author the next. I sincerely thank you and RAT for this opportunity.
I can agree on much of what you say in your post and in fact upon re-reading it should have made clearer in my original post that your book caused me MUCH more joy than pain.
I will concede to you that our views on the Roman army have in the past been dominated too much by finds from France, Germany, Netherlands and England and that it is possible, and indeed likely, that the appearance of soldiers may have been different in other places and indeed even within the same area or unit. I will also concede to you that the actual finds we have constitute only a tiny fraction of the total amount of equipment in use at any point of time and that the specimen they represent will be much biased towards metallic equipment because this is simply more prone to survive.
Therefore any reconstruction of the appearance of the army as a whole will have to be based on certain assumptions.
My assumption is that equipment will have certainly been diverse but only within certain limits. To illustrate this point, I will make reference to helmets because many of these can be checked in the helmet database and because you have not argued for extensive use of non-metallic helmets (assuming that you have not found a specimen of the Amendola reinforced Phrygian cap in any obscure museum!).
No two Roman helmets are exactly the same. On the other hand we can discern different typologies of helmets (which you set out in your book) which share certain characteristics. When we look at these groups of helmets we find that helmets sharing the same characteristics are actually spread all over the Roman empire: We know of Weisenau helmets from find spots in from France, Germany, Netherlands and England but also from the Danube, Caucasus, and Israel. We also find pseudoattic cavalry helmets France, Germany, Netherlands and England but also on the Danube and in Syria. More importantly we find that with very few exceptions (such as the Autun helmet) ALL helmet finds can be assigned to an established type of helmet (although the exact limits between different types may be subject to discussion). In fact, over time there appears to be strong tendency to ever more uniformity if we compare Nieberbieber and Heddernheim type helmet finds from Dura Europos, Sivac, North Africa and Germany. What is most surprising is that even the flamboyant so-called parade helmets fall into subtypes with defined characteristics which again are very similar all over the Roman world.
To me these similarities make it safe to assume that we have a pretty good grasp of what the Romans at any given time would have considered a decent military helmet. There was considerable leeway with respect to individual embellishment but the general outline was very consistent. Therefore, although we may make new finds which may constitute new subtypes (such as the Weisenau-Guttmann type which was virtually unknown prior to the publication of the collection) it is rather unlikely that we discover completely new types of helmet (except maybe individual officers' pieces) which cannot be assigned to a new category.
In summary, I would conclude that although the finds we have constitute only a small specimen, that specimen appears to be fairly representative of what was used and lost. If one agrees with that conclusion, the item worn by your reconstruction of the Portonaccio soldier (my apologies for misidentifying him as a legionary) is just too far off from any helmet known from finds to have been used during this period to be accepted as a likely reconstruction and it is far more likely to have been inspired by a regular Weisenau type helmet.
I am aware that the argument made above will have less force with respect to body armor as there are fewer finds and use of non-metallic forms of body armor which have not survived may have been more extensive. But also in this case I would apply the rule that, if the artistic depiction resembles a type of equipment which is established by actual finds to have been actually used, it appears more reasonable to identify it as such and assume artistic license in any discrepancies than to assume that it is a realistic depiction of an unknown type of equipment. Based on that I see no reason to identify the Portonaccio soldier as a representation of a leather lorica. I leave it to more experienced reenactors to debate whether such a piece of armour - opening in the front and therefore presenting the weakest part to the enemy (whereas other types of armor clearly attempt to avoid unreinforced front openings) - would make practical sense.
I conclude by reiterating that this is one of the most fascinating and thought provoking books published on this topic. You cannot be praised enough for the work you put into it and I look forward to continuing the debate after actually having read it from front to back.
Whow! I would never have believed it possible to pick up a book on one day and have a debate with the author the next. I sincerely thank you and RAT for this opportunity.
I can agree on much of what you say in your post and in fact upon re-reading it should have made clearer in my original post that your book caused me MUCH more joy than pain.
I will concede to you that our views on the Roman army have in the past been dominated too much by finds from France, Germany, Netherlands and England and that it is possible, and indeed likely, that the appearance of soldiers may have been different in other places and indeed even within the same area or unit. I will also concede to you that the actual finds we have constitute only a tiny fraction of the total amount of equipment in use at any point of time and that the specimen they represent will be much biased towards metallic equipment because this is simply more prone to survive.
Therefore any reconstruction of the appearance of the army as a whole will have to be based on certain assumptions.
My assumption is that equipment will have certainly been diverse but only within certain limits. To illustrate this point, I will make reference to helmets because many of these can be checked in the helmet database and because you have not argued for extensive use of non-metallic helmets (assuming that you have not found a specimen of the Amendola reinforced Phrygian cap in any obscure museum!).
No two Roman helmets are exactly the same. On the other hand we can discern different typologies of helmets (which you set out in your book) which share certain characteristics. When we look at these groups of helmets we find that helmets sharing the same characteristics are actually spread all over the Roman empire: We know of Weisenau helmets from find spots in from France, Germany, Netherlands and England but also from the Danube, Caucasus, and Israel. We also find pseudoattic cavalry helmets France, Germany, Netherlands and England but also on the Danube and in Syria. More importantly we find that with very few exceptions (such as the Autun helmet) ALL helmet finds can be assigned to an established type of helmet (although the exact limits between different types may be subject to discussion). In fact, over time there appears to be strong tendency to ever more uniformity if we compare Nieberbieber and Heddernheim type helmet finds from Dura Europos, Sivac, North Africa and Germany. What is most surprising is that even the flamboyant so-called parade helmets fall into subtypes with defined characteristics which again are very similar all over the Roman world.
To me these similarities make it safe to assume that we have a pretty good grasp of what the Romans at any given time would have considered a decent military helmet. There was considerable leeway with respect to individual embellishment but the general outline was very consistent. Therefore, although we may make new finds which may constitute new subtypes (such as the Weisenau-Guttmann type which was virtually unknown prior to the publication of the collection) it is rather unlikely that we discover completely new types of helmet (except maybe individual officers' pieces) which cannot be assigned to a new category.
In summary, I would conclude that although the finds we have constitute only a small specimen, that specimen appears to be fairly representative of what was used and lost. If one agrees with that conclusion, the item worn by your reconstruction of the Portonaccio soldier (my apologies for misidentifying him as a legionary) is just too far off from any helmet known from finds to have been used during this period to be accepted as a likely reconstruction and it is far more likely to have been inspired by a regular Weisenau type helmet.
I am aware that the argument made above will have less force with respect to body armor as there are fewer finds and use of non-metallic forms of body armor which have not survived may have been more extensive. But also in this case I would apply the rule that, if the artistic depiction resembles a type of equipment which is established by actual finds to have been actually used, it appears more reasonable to identify it as such and assume artistic license in any discrepancies than to assume that it is a realistic depiction of an unknown type of equipment. Based on that I see no reason to identify the Portonaccio soldier as a representation of a leather lorica. I leave it to more experienced reenactors to debate whether such a piece of armour - opening in the front and therefore presenting the weakest part to the enemy (whereas other types of armor clearly attempt to avoid unreinforced front openings) - would make practical sense.
I conclude by reiterating that this is one of the most fascinating and thought provoking books published on this topic. You cannot be praised enough for the work you put into it and I look forward to continuing the debate after actually having read it from front to back.
Regards,
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
