Armatura della Colchide

[Magnus]

Why?
There is more than enough highly decorated material which was certainly used in war as well. See the cavalry face helmets. Were this an original, the helmet would fit into that context very well. But the armour is not wearable on horseback-helmets of this type were so far found in cavalry context. Weird composition.
So far there is no material evidence that the romans used different armour or weapons for parade than for combat.

Yes, I think our idea of "parade" stems more from the modern sense than any contemporary evidence.

Also high ranking officers usually didn't lead from the front anyway...so the possibility does exist that the armour could sacrifice some practicality for looks.

[Neuraleanus]

There is more than enough highly decorated material which was certainly used in war as well. See the cavalry face helmets. Were this an original, the helmet would fit into that context very well. But the armour is not wearable on horseback-helmets of this type were so far found in cavalry context. Weird composition.

I'm not sure how weird this may be. Did not signifers also wear face-mask helmets?

[Theodosius the Great]

Assuming that a so splendid armour (if original) was property of a very high level officer, it was certanly for parade and not for war. But... triumphs and parades were made in Rome, not in Colchide !! why the armour was there?
Further it is very strange that it is from brass. This metal was never used for weaponary, I think that the lorica of an emperor was from silver not from bronze or brass.

Good points. If the armor is original (which I too doubt) maybe it isn't really Roman. It could be Armenian. Armenians were partially Romanised and their cavalry too, IIRC, wore face masks as did some Persian cavalry. Brass may have been good enough for an Armenian king or officer, who knows. (Just wild speculation )

~Theo

[martijn.wijnhoven]

And the book published on this armour...

Has someone already read this book and does it provide some (feasible) answers?

[Quintus Galerius]

I think that the book is the history of the discovery, not about the armour

[Luca]

On the off-chance that it isn't a modern fake, it could be part of a triumphal monument as suggested above, or a non-Roman imitation of Roman regalia. Even the Sutton Hoo regalia was a late barbarian imitation of Roman gear.

Good points. If the armor is original (which I too doubt) maybe it isn't really Roman. It could be Armenian. Armenians were partially Romanised and their cavalry too, IIRC, wore face masks as did some Persian cavalry. Brass may have been good enough for an Armenian king or officer, who knows. (Just wild speculation )

I agree with both. The higher probability is that is an "ancient" fake, could be done in Middle Age or during XVII-XVIII centuries. This could explain the mixture of symbology and different artistic touches comparing the classical roman art.

[marcos]

[ The higher probability is that is an "ancient" fake, could be done in Middle Age or during XVII-XVIII centuries. This could explain the mixture of symbology and different artistic touches comparing the classical roman art.

Could be, Luca, but I don't believe, and I tell you why.
I have the book, and in it there are some (low resolution) pictures. In one is possible to see a so called another "very important find" in those areas, which is a phyrgian helmet + a shield+ a spear head. This last one has a very strange shape and moreover on the surface it has several channels (I hope the picture is enough clear). Then, take a look at the spear head found togheter the armour: it has the some shape and the some channels !!!!
Up to my opinon, they come from the some fakes industry.

p.s
what about the phyrgian helmet? is really grotty.

[Luca]

okay, but I don't understand why these fakes could not be made some centuries ago. Of course these could be made 2 weeks ago, but also more more and more time ago.

[marcos]

just because the market in these years is full of those fakes, it is a prosperous industry of those country.
Here one other fake among several; can you see the some style?


Trust me, there are tons of similar fakes.

[Luca]

you are right, but there are many evidences in a prosperous fakes market also during the Victorian era as example.
Okay, this is not so important. It seems to me more relevant that basically 100% of the posts here agrees about it could be a fake.

[caiusbeerquitius]

I´m happy these fakes exist
They pull loads of money out the the pockets of collectors, PLUS they are fun.
:lol: :mrgreen:

[Cincinnatus]

This isn't even a competent fake, its a fantasy piece made by someone who knows very little about Roman armor other than what is seen in Hollywood films. In the art business these aren't even consider forgeries, it isn't even trying to be authentic, these are offered to tourists daily in many Bazaars and Souks on the off chance that someone will actually think they have found a treasure and spend some money on it. Something like this would never fool a serious collector, I'm sure once it gets in front of someone competent, it will be dismissed as such, (also C-14 tests are for organic material, not metal).

Randall

[Luca]

I had yesterday an interesting discussion with one of our group members that is pretty expert also of the Renaissance period.
He told me some interesting things:
- During the renaissance (about XVII century) it became very popular to rebuild roman armour in order to wear them during parades or just to show them to visitors and hosts. More often by copying statues of course. It was very popular also in eastern european regions.
- Brass was commonly used in place of bronze to make those artefacts.
- The air-holes on the back we commonly introduced in the XVII century on the armours of that period and are unknown (to my friend and to me) referred to more ancient times. So who built that fake referred to some construction elements of that period. I don’t remember any roman finding (either true armours or statues) with those hole between shoulders. So what I told in my previous post it could be a proof of genuinity could be used on the opposite way as proof of non roman authenticity.

[Goffredo]

A question: I imagine people knew romans used face-masks for some time now. From sulptures (tombs). But when was the first face mask found? I learned about face-masks only about 10 years ago when I re-started my interests in romans. I didn't know about them at all when I was a boy (many many years ago). The Colchide face-mask, "presumed by this community fake until proved otherwise", hits the scene when the vast public does know about them from TV documentaries etc.

[Luca]

Good point Goffredo.

Could we think that masks were available through the centuries and disappeared during last centuries?
We cannot know, but my conviction is that roman produced massively everything. Today we are still finding tons of things and probably many things were still available in 1500 or 1600. Or also some rapresentation of them uch as sculptures or drawings or frescoes now lost.

Who can tell?