Robert,<br>
<br>
I have to say your reconstruction is a sight more tasteful than the rather garish blue and red colour scheme in the 'official' reconstruction.<br>
<br>
It looks plausible to me (with the proviso that I am in no way an expert).<br>
<br>
Carus <p></p><i></i>
Tasteful, what is tasteful, what was tasteful for ancient Romans?<br>
Think on what Graham has said. That idea and that possible pigment rests actually remaining on the statue, are our only clues...<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.
Graham, Rich, others..<br>
This is not my repaint/reconstruction , it comes from a fast google search of the net. I don't know who the artist is, but it comes from the very nice Waldgirmes site: [url=http://www.waldgirmes.de/roemer/" target="top]www.waldgirmes.de/roemer/ augustus.htm[/url].<br>
<br>
Nathan, I could easily produce a retouched version with Photoshop, but it would take me a day or so the get the details right.<br>
<br>
Having said that, I agree with Rich that the blue&red colors don't seem to lifelike. But I remain more convinced of a purple color instead of red. The white chosen by this particular artist therefore seems wrong.<br>
<br>
Graham, I think life-like does not refer to the details of the painting, but to the colors.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Does this UV investigation pick up traces of gold leaf? It occured to me that the 'white' areas on the original picture might have been gilded... Imagine an all-gold Augustus! I believe a gold (gilded?) equestrian statue of him was erected by order of the Senate in 43BC, so perhaps the same sort of thing, with painted clothing, happened here?<br>
<br>
Looking at those original UV colours again, I'm sure that 'red' is actually a purple, of a rather pinkish variety. Purple and gold, then? With blue bits? Nice! <p></p><i></i>
That sure is a weird picture...<br>
I don"t know whether the colors are true but one thing is certain, the pteryges were of different colors. IT is unclear whether it was alternating colors on the same row, or different colors for the different rows. <p></p><i></i>
That is just so totally cool beans! I'm eager to see how the continued information develops!<br>
<br>
My take, as an Artist, I felt a little offended by the comment that an artist would portray an [emperor] in the wrong colors. Yes, there is artistic liscence and also a "glorified look" an artist may want to achieve. But keep in mind of modern paintings, I think of the new debate about the painting of George Washington crossing the Delaware...This is influenced by the Romantic styles and Baroque, Realism styles, and this is also a glorified imagine focusing on Washington...And this painting was done after the event, and I doubt that artist was even involved in the actual event, so you're going to miss a few details and need to fill them up somehow.<br>
So this imagrey of Augustus, depicted as a god [Mars] et cetera, doesn't surprise me.<br>
<br>
Ok, so about the colors, The "blue" that shows up for the "silver" or "metal" areas to me indicates a sizing that would be something for guilding. Red is normally used for Gold (like Gothic Iconograpy panels), but you'd want to use a green, turquoise, or even blue color for Copper, bronze and silver. I can't remember why this is at the moment, I think it has to do with the way those metals achieve a petina - the [blue] would act as a background color for depth and bringing out highlights.... Anyways I agree with the idea of Purple for ptergues trimmings and cloak, possibly tunica colors. That makes sense, and as with the blue, the colors you see in the reconstruction and the UV imagry to me suggests what the paint looked like after some fading, remember it's been sitting around for a good thousand years or so, paint ain't gonna stick around for too long, pun intended The UV imagery IMHO is showing the residual remains of the thickest of the paints left in the pores of the [stonework]. The richest surface colors in that are going to fade, even more so if outdoors, so to me this is what we are seeing.<br>
<br>
Either way, I'm thrilled beyond belief at this new evidence, I'm really eager to see what develops. The implications are staggering!<br>
<br>
Aitor - You were wondering how the straps are attatched to the back of the breast/backplates? I'd think some thick rivets would be employed, not unlike something seen on Maille armor. <p></p><i></i>
<br>
Andy,<br>
T<br>
hen you mean that a ring and knotted cord union like that at the front part is discarded? I'm rather relieved, because my muscled cuirass has its shoulder-plates attached to the back by a hook!<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.
I just returned from Munich, hence my not responding sooner, and regretably, the exhibit had closed at the end of February. I did get the catalogue though, and it has a lot more interesting images. Unfortunately there is nothing connected to the "common Roman soldier", though a lot about the Alexander sarcophagus.<br>
<br>
I agree that the breastplate itself may have had a metallic skinning. We know many Roman helmets were covered in silver foil. This could have been stripped off in antiquity. Likewise, ancient temples of marble usually had elaborate bronze moldings around every window and door and most are gone today. As for the accuracy, there is an 1886 painting of the prima porta, done when the paint was much more visible, and it also has the red tunic, cloak and blue pteruges, though the IR caught the alternating blue and red.<br>
<br>
As for the mysterious "other" Prima Porta Robert produced, this was displayed at the same Rosenheim exhibit where I had my painted 20,000 figure Varus Army, 8 lifesize soldier and barbarian renconstructions as well as the top Gutmann and Kalkreise pieces. This Augustus was largely hypothetical, and the white tunic is in contradiction of both the visual evidence of 1886 and the IR technology.<br>
<br>
Now, let's get them to test some early imperial military sculpture!<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
J.H.,<br>
Trajan's Column now seems to be 'restored' with a coating that would probably prevent this kind of investigation. however there is a lot of stone friezes, tombstones, etc, depicting regular Roman soldiers in which this process could be employed. The researchers seemed far more interested in determining the colors of famous works of art, rather than learning the colors used by common soldiers.<br>
<br>
Dan <p></p><i></i>
"however there is a lot of stone friezes, tombstones, etc, depicting regular Roman soldiers in which this process could be employed"- My ideal would be the Adamklissi Tropaeum-sculpture done near the frontline, close to the action......but I suspect I'll b waiting a while... <p></p><i></i>
Dan,<br>
<br>
(or anyone else)<br>
<br>
Could you possibly post publication details for the catalogue of the Munich exhibition? I might try to get hold of a copy for the Alexander Sarcophagus stuff.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Duncan <p></p><i></i>
Duncan,<br>
The exhibit and catalogue are entitled "Bunte Gotter" subtitled Die Farbikeit Antiker Skulptur, 272 pages, lare format and lots of color pictures. ISBN 3-9332000-08-3, there is aparently an English translation too, and although not available here, the exhibit was done in cooperation with the Vatican and Kopenhagen Glyptothek so one of these may have it in English.<br>
<br>
Let me know if you need anything else.<br>
<br>
Dan <p></p><i></i>
