Another new Graham Sumner book?

[Medicus matt]

in Richborough at least one of the pseudo-Attic Theodosian helmet was in leather with metallic fittings.

Really? That's new information to me. What's the evidence for that please Mr D'Amato?

Also, what are the anticpated publication dates for other volumes in this series?

[jho]

I believe that Mr. D'Amato is referring to the fragments published in Malcolm Lyne, Late Roman helmet fragments from Richborough, Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5.

These are three strips of metal which Lyne very tentatively reconstructs as the brow band, crest holder and crest decoration of a non-metallic helmet. I have a picture of the find (not the complete article) on my hard drive and could email it to you if you PM me your email address.

[Medicus matt]

I believe that Mr. D'Amato is referring to the fragments published in Malcolm Lyne, Late Roman helmet fragments from Richborough, Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5.

These are three strips of metal which Lyne very tentatively reconstructs as the brow band, crest holder and crest decoration of a non-metallic helmet. I have a picture of the find (not the complete article) on my hard drive and could email it to you if you PM me your email address.

Sorry, I'm aware of the helmet...it was the statement that it was a leather helmet with metal fittings that came as a surprise. What evidence is there for that or is it conjecture based on there being a lack of any metallic bowl elements?

[Gorgon]

...The intention which moved me to prepare these 6 mega-books was ...

I don't want to break the flow of the discussion, so please forgive me, but aren't they supposed to be 3 books, not 6?

Dear friend,
the original project provided 3 books about Roman classical age 753 BC-565 AD and now are in discussion also other 3 books about the Roman Army in Middle Age (Byzantium)
Considering that for each book I can supply the same amount of inedite images and information the final project will be 6 volumes
Thanks for your interest
Raffaele

Thank you for the information. I'll eagerly await the next volumes in the series.

[Gorgon]

Your reconstruction of the leather patchwork leggings and segmentata on the other hand appear problematic to me under that premise.

How would you interpret the leggings?

[jho]

I would interpret the leggings as a clumsy attempt to show normal pteryges.

Compare this gravestone of Caius Valerius Secundus from Mainz:

[url:u39kepnk]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/option,com_imagebase/task,view/cid,38/Itemid,94/[/url]

Actually, when I revisited the drawing of Caius Valerius Crispus in the image base just now, it appears that the pteryges continue between the legs:

[url:u39kepnk]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/option,com_imagebase/task,view/cid,171/Itemid,94/[/url]

I have never noticed this on the original and therefore it may be an issue of over-interpretation by the artist but in any event it appears reasonable to assume that in both cases normal pteryges are intended.

[Gorgon]

If you look at photographs there is clearly no continuation between the legs, though.

http://images.google.fi/imgres?imgurl=h ... N%26um%3D1

(last photo on the web page)

To me it seems that the artist doing the drawing simply assumed that the conventional opinion that those are pteruges is basically true and so he started seeying things were there are none. Unless he had a better photograph to work with or was face to face with the sculpture this seems like a pretty bad example of a "scientific" drawing. Every single photo I've seen shown no continuation between the legs at all.

I also can't find any real reason to assume that this is a clumsy attempt on the part of the original sculptor to portray pteryges.

[martijn.wijnhoven]

Just for the sake of clarity (and maybe to add to the confusion). The “anonymous” artist that both are referring to is Graham Sumner, who also made the colour illustration under discussion.

Cheers,

Martijn

[jho]

Now that is a funny coincidence! I hadn't noticed that, thank you for pointing it out. Maybe he can explain to us on what his drawing is based.

I am afraid that the photo is not large enough for my weak eyes but I will try to find a larger one in a book this evening.

Anyway, even without such continuation, I find it likely that pteryges are intended.

[Gorgon]

Just for the sake of clarity (and maybe to add to the confusion). The “anonymous” artist that both are referring to is Graham Sumner, who also made the colour illustration under discussion.

Cheers,

Martijn

hock:

*runs away before anyone notices*

[Graham Sumner]

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.

And now the artist!

However, you may still be able to convince me of your position if you can actually propose a workable leather reconstruction of the Amendola cap/helmet.

There is a reconstruction of a Phrygian type leather helmet in H. Vetters 'Der Urform Der Phrygischen Mutze'. Antike Welt 16 Jg, 1985.

The main argument against the use of leather armour by the Romans is not that it was used in other periods but that it was useless! This was put forward by H. Russell Robinson in the now classic 'The Armour of Imperial Rome', 1974.

Therefore before commencing on the reconstructions, which are if you like the shop window of both the book and Raffaele's ideas, I did some background research of my own. I discussed the ideas of leather armour with the managing director of Clayton's Castleford, a traditional tannery and sent him several designs of proposed reconstructions. He was in no doubt that leather could be used in the ways suggested and that it would be highly effective. He even proposed that leather could be edged with rawhide.

I also spoke to Mark Beaby at the Royal Armouries in Leeds. He too was convinced that leather could be used as armour by the Romans. He had experimented himself with making a leather helmet and even his first attempt was found to be as hard as mild steel! He has also published his findings on leather armour in 'The Royal Armouries Yearbook 1997'.

Working on the reconstruction of the armour of Crispus I noticed the similarity of it with the Buff coats of the English Civil War. 'Arms and Armour of the English Civil Wars' by D. Blackmore, Royal Armouries. 1990 gives a useful description of the various Buff coats and their method of construction. Some still survive of course but it is interesting to note that they came in a variety of styles and thicknesses. They were not a cheap option and most were even more expensive than the steel cuirasses but were often worn as an alternative to the metal armour. The book also illustrates some leather cannon!!

Another interesting book which discusses leather armour is 'Oriental Armour' written in 1967. The author describes at length various types of leather armour and identifies some Chinese sculpture as depicting leather armour. The sculptures look just like some Roman examples. The author also mentions that some Middle Eastern leather armor was probably derived from Greco Roman examples. the Author of the book.................H. Russell Robinson!!!!

Also I have no problem with assuming that artists would be prepared to mix "realistic" and "fantastic (i.e. normally stylized rather than completely inventend) which you appear to find unlikely. To illustrate this point: Many World War I memorials (and also art from the Third Reich) in Germany show German soldiers in photorealistic Stahlhelm, trouser, boots but with naked chests and wielding swords and kite shields. Neither the artists nor the audience had a problem with this as the "shield" in particular conveys an allegorical message which could not be conveyed by depicting a rifle.

I know of an example myself. A WW1 German postcard which depicts the First Battle of Ypres but shows the German infantry in grey tunics and pickelhaube helmets but the British in red coats and bearskin hats!

All the painted reconstructions were based on exhaustive and copius research by Raffaele. Believe me I have huge folders of the material which took months to go through before even I could start painting. Aware of the possible reaction, in particular on RAT to leather armour and based on my own experience in re-enactment I did not blindly follow orders as perhaps some illustrators might have done or maybe even as Raffele would have liked. I challenged anything I was not happy about. After all how could I paint convincing reconstructions if I was not convinved myself? This sometimes meant heated discussion, took time, caused delays and generally meant Raffaele had to carry out even more research. The final results should be viewed in that light.

Graham.

[jho]

This seems to be my lucky day!

Thank you for the interesting back ground information. I personally have no problem with accepting that leather has substantial protective value. My issue is only that I cannot see why anybody would have come up with the specific designs for leather armour proposed by Mr. D'Amato where there were in my opinion more functional and well-established designs for non-metallic armour (namely the tube-and-yoke).

Re. the Amendola, it is not the Phrygian cap shape which worries me as much as the free floating reinforcement bar at the back of the helmet.

Still a wonderful book - my congratulations on your lovely plates.

[Ebusitanus]

I just received this great book yesterday and had not had much chance to read it in depth. I found inmediatly interesting the section about the metal musculata found in Spain on page 42.

We were just commenting on this find the other day on our legion´s forum and its significance. Reading the book´s text it says that the remains are from the III-I century BC from shipwreck.
On the very photos you attached to the text you can even read the spanish descrition of the find as:

Pectoral de coraza de Bronce
N.R. E8.600
Época griega. Siglo V-IV a. C.
Cueva Submarina del Jarro, Almuñécar, Granada.

It claims it to be from the V-IV Century BC, not the III-I BC and its points it out as "Greek". One of our members was at the museum recently and was told that the shipwreck was actually a Carthaginian one.

I´m a bit conrfused now

[salimbeti]

It claims it to be from the V-IV Century BC, not the III-I BC and its points it out as "Greek". One of our members was at the museum recently and was told that the shipwreck was actually a Carthaginian one.

I´m a bit conrfused now

The explanation is reported in note 1007 page 261

[D B Campbell]

It claims it to be from the V-IV Century BC, not the III-I BC and its points it out as "Greek". One of our members was at the museum recently and was told that the shipwreck was actually a Carthaginian one. I´m a bit conrfused now

The explanation is reported in note 1007 page 261

How mysterious. Care to enlighten us non-book-owners?