Musculata Nipples

[Doc]

Looking at various Greek musculata armor, the nipples that have survived are diffiuclt to discern as to their metallic nature. I know there is one presented by D'Amato as being Roman, the nipples there are no longer attached nor did there have to be any present.

Nonetheless, either because of corrosion or "bad" lighting in the photos that I have, I cannot tell if the nipples are silver, silvered, gold, copper etc..... Does anyone have an information as to the nature of these nipples.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Some where silver on bronze. I have seen gold on iron. I guess most were one piece with the bronze cuirass.
Khaire
Giannis

[Doc]

Giannis,

Thanks for the reply. I know the one you mentioned about the gold on iron. However, I am not sure I understand what you mean about one piece with the bronze curiass. Are you suggesting that the nipples were directly beat out of the chest instead of being applied like the silver ones.

[Doc]

I forgot to ask in the last post. Do you have any pictures or links to musculata that have the silver nipples. I have pictures of the iron one with the gold nipples.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Yes,that's what i meant. The vast majority has the nipples beaten on the cuirass themselves.
I think i have a photo of silver ones that i may find later,but for sure Connolly shows one or two such in his Greece and Rome at War.
Khaire
Giannis

[Matt Lukes]

Really Giannis? I've actually never seen one that has clearly has integral, beaten-out nipples- they seem to always be applique pieces; of course I'm only speaking of the anatomically-correct forms (short included), although there is one of the short, 6-part exaggerated musculature corselets that has applied nipples too. I have images of 17 or 18 so far- many from the ex-Guttmann collection, from the BM, from the Met and a bunch just collected from the Internet, so I don't know the source sadly. Many of them it's very clear the nipples are separate, a number it's only likely since the appearance is identical to those that are definite, and a few that are so projecting and small that I cannot help but believe would be virtually impossible to hammer them out of very thick bronze and them still look like the applique type. The only armour I've seen without applique nipples have only stylized ones- simple incised circles, holes bored in a circular pattern, etc.

Unfortunately the nipples of nearly all I know of are copper or copper alloy so the oxide layer makes their metallic nature indistinguishable from the breastplate's main body; I'd only read- also in Connolly- about silver being used, and of course there's the gold from the Prodromi iron version, but that's it for precious metals. doc and I had been wondering about using copper on bronze- for a beautiful contrast- but regrettibly again they'd be indistinguisable on an oxidized artifact- only XRF or other such analysis would say for sure what metals the parts were. It seems reasonable that copper could be used for decoration- it was valuable just like bronze afterall- but something more than circumstantial evidence is always desirable.

I'd certainly love to know if there really are examples with beaten out nipples- I can't imagine I have photos of all breastplates that exist.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Hello Matt. Yes,i believe most of them are beaten from the sheet itself. It's certain they are bronze and i don't see a hint of them being a separate piece. Of course there are different styles,some don't even have niples,especially the earlier ones. But since the belly buttons are beaten in,i think the nipples can just as easily be beater out.
Khaire
Giannis

[Matt Lukes]

Well the last three you posted are all ones that I think are separate- they match ones I'm certain are, and even if you look at the lighting, particularly of the second one, you can see the nipple isn't integral. There are a couple of examples where the nipples are missing and the shallow indentation in which they sit is visible, thus any place where you see a demarkation such as is visible on the last three suggests a separate piece. The first, very ornate one, clearly has them beaten in, but this I'd classify with the ones I mentioned as being separate from the 'usual' since it is very different in construction.

Your logic about the navel being beaten in makes the nipples being beaten out is faulty I'm afraid- they're very, very different things- it's easy to impress the navel, but just look how projecting the nipples are on the third breastplate- much harder to hammer out, and quite significnatly so over an applique piece.

Here are some images that showed me the nature of the nipples I'm referring to: the first one is pretty clear that they're not beaten out but separate, the second shows a recess into which one would be applied but it's now missing and the third shows both how far out the nipple projects and also the nature of the interior face- it appears flattened and certainly shows the nipple itself wasn't beaten out, and I think represents the recess into which the applique pieces sit. This all being said, it's not impossible that the perimiter of the aerola is incised with a punch and the nipple itself a form of rivet peened flat on the inside- that would be unrecognizable on that interior photograph, and that is the only interior shot I have. But overall it still seems the simplest explanation of the available visual evidence that the nipples are lighter sheet pieces attached to the heavy main breastplate.

[Nearco]

The first one is outstanding! Where can be seen this piece??