dyeing linen

[Robert Vermaat]

And why would soldiers always be pictured armed? If this is your criteria, you are ruling out lots of potential evidence for what soldiers looked like. Why would the boar not be a military symbol?

Indeed, why not? Well, I did not state with absolute certaintty that he was not a soldier, just that I don't think so. I just don't think that on a mosaic you want ambiguous images - if you want to show something to your guests (which is mainly what a mosaic is, a decoration around the house, andd a show-piece at that) you want to be clear. And if you want to depict a soldier, you want people to know he's a soldier.

The discussion becomes completely academic when we try to judge whether a person without arm is a soldier without arms or an unarmed civilian. I guess it comes down to personal preferences, then.

Why is the assumption made, as you have in this case, that persons pictured doing menial labor are slaves? Why would Roman artists constantly picture slaves and not freemen? Why would they show slaves richly dressed and not as they would have been-in rags? Perhaps this mosaic (Villa Armerina) seeks to depict slaves, but is this the rule to be followed in all mosaics? Are all persons depicted doing menial labor assumed to be slaves, no matter what other features are shown?

Why would slaves be in rags? You obviously do not know the Villa Armerina mosaics, otherwise you'd know that the villa has been attributed to a very high class person, perhaps even an emperor. Slaves did not need to go around in rags, why should they? And slaves to very rich persons could wear very expensive clothing.

Also, who said anything about personss doing manual labour being slaves? Only you, John. The reason why I classed these persons as servants (NOT slaves) is that their tunics are unbelted. Meaning they cannot be soldiers. Nothing was said about slaves.