Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[Matt Lukes]

I see other explanations for the sculptural depictions, I don't see them as being hugely compelling- but they are interesting nonetheless.

I've gone over them in close detail, and while I can see arguments that these are subarmalia or linen or what not, leather is still the best option. Again, I say this in my article, no one doubts that the tongue pteruges and elaborate equestrian boots are leather, yet somehow they find the notion of molded leather cuirasses troubling. Ultimately it comes down to simple assumptions, assumptions that are not fully warranted.

Actually, my main alternative is that it's parade or non-combatant 'garment' armor- not actual battle armor. That kind of thing could indeed be shaped to look just like metal musculata, and thus be indestingusihable in sculpture.

As for boots and pteruges, since they aren't intended to offer protection from sharp, pointy things, I see no trouble with accepting them as being leather while still having doubts about a leather cuirass. Add to that the fact that leather footwear and garments are well-documented in the archaeological record...

Again, the preference for the archaeological record is itself a problem since the archaeological record preserves potential isolates and anomalies. As far as we know, we may be wearing reproductions that represent a very narrow band of armor that was only worn in one small region or time.

Absolutely- I recently wondered if the prevalence of battle damage and replacement fittings on Lorica segmentata artifacts was actually representative of the population or simply due to the fact that we find only those bits that were discarded because they were damaged.

Everyone sees these problems with the "artistic license" when it comes to the artwork, very rarely to they see the problems with archaeological finds. I'm an art historian by training, so my thing is the art, which is no less valid a source than a few possibly accidental survivals in my opinion. The best is to consult all sources and look for commonalities. We simply can't do that in the case of the musculata since the only firm evidence is the artwork.

I disagree- the issue of artistic license seems to be far, far more of a hazard than the potential skewing of our view because we only find a limited number of artifacts (relative to the original population of pieces). With artifacts, regardless if they're unrepresentative, we can still say that a given piece WAS used by someone. If we only have one, sure there's a possibility we're all using something that wasn't widely used, but it's all we have. With artwork, details may simply be in the artist's head and not real at all- which is not only unhelpful, but actualy detremental.

Now certainly if artwork is all we have, we do have to make do- but it becomes far, far harder to defend any kind of postulation. Even details actually represented will still have the doubt associated with the issue of potential artist impression. Multiple examples showing a particular thing are very helpful in addressing that of course.

One thing that occurs is that one possibility for the complete lack of any musculata artifacts is that they weren't actually commonly-used. And they're all associated with fairly high-ranking men, right? Both of those would contradict the idea that leather musculata were analogous to the cheap 'can't afford better' armor of the middle ages. So then why would someone who could pay for the protection of metal armor opt for leather?

Here's hoping a musculata is found in some peat bog some day!!

Absolutely- peat is a lovely thing