New CLASSIS-soldier (!!) tombstone discovered in Italy

[Robert Vermaat]

Though off-topic I found it curious that the account mentions being attacked by "sea monsters" rather than fish, unless the terms are interchangable. One thing that has alway intrigued me is that although most Roman "monsters" are very naive half-animal half fish or half-human kinds of things, their favorite sea monster, the Ketos, looks uncannily like a real prehistoric plesiosaur, (or the popular conception of the Loch Ness monster). This same, distinctly reptilian sea creature is seen in art from classical Greece to the end of the Roman Empire, including the decoration of Roman military equipment.

How about the great white shark?

[Daniel S Peterson]

Sure, and they do occur in the Med, as I learned on a diving trip, but would they be called monsters? With your interest in late Romans, you may have seen all of the Christian tombstones with Jonah and the "Whale". In every one, the "whale" is always a long necked, dragonish looking marine reptile, like something out of the Jurassic seas, and nothing at all like a whale or fish.

[richsc]

Just saw this new image in Exploratorium

[url:2zuh67yo]http://www.archeobo.arti.beniculturali.it/comunicati_stampa/stele_clas_en.htm[/url]

[raeticus]

nice image and very well preserved grave stone !

[MARCENTIUS]

Dear Mister Bishop,
Thank you for your answer.
About the problem of the date, personally I think that the Optio belongs to the late Flavian Age (although Graham Sumner suggested a Julio-Claudian date ), due to the name of the Liburna mentioned in the inscription, attested in other documents of that age and obviously linked with the new circus factions created by Domitianus. In a late Flavian stele from Constantia a Titus Flavius Capito is mentioned who may be nothing to do with our Montanus but may be of the same family. The use of the nominative case is not excluded by tombstones of the beginning of the second century AD, as you can see for example, on the cippus of the Cornicen Cneus Coponius Felicio, preserved in the Palazzo Ducale of Mantova (CN COPONIUS FELICIO)
The hairstyle of Coponius is virtually identical to the hairstyle of our Optio as well as the quality of the details rendered in the sculpture. Also the letters - which are preserved in their red original colours in the Coponius monument - are practically of the same stile employed in the cippus of our naval officer.
The archaeological context in which the Classe cippus was found is that of the 5th century. The cippus had been re-employed as a support for some harbour structures when the Classis area begun to expand in beginning of 5th century, due to the transformation of Classis as the harbour of the new Capital. The cippus belongs without discussion to the 1-3rd century necropolis excavated in Classis, just in the area of the ware-houses. This is the reason of the fact that the cippus was broken and so why we do not know the upper inscription. We cannot exclude the presence of the DM on the upper pedestal now lost. But also it is not a rule : not always were stelae of the begining of the second century furnished with such a dedication, again look at my previous example of Coponius.

Moreover, what you are call "Factoids" are for me simple evidence. Let me explain further:

1) The pteryges and lappets are clearly separated by the main body of the muscle cuirass : on the shoulders You can see the line dividing the double rows of kremasmata from the main body of the armour, and the pteryges, under the thick lappets of the lower part of the armour, are clearly separated from overlapping cymation by a thickness of 5 mm. circa. If you imagine the garment without armour its aspect, with minor differences, is similar to the padded garment of an unknown military man from Modena.
2) That the arming doublet was called subarmalis is a reasonable assumption i.e. under armor. Logically there were a lot of different types of subarmales and logically the word was not the only one used in the Roman world to indicate such kind of garments. Just read the Egyptian papyri from Roman Egypt for instance.
3) The padding of the sleeves protection is evident. The sculptor was able enough not only to realise very well the muscled detail of the armour (look the underlining of the signs at the breast level) but he marked the difference among the thickness of the double rows on the shoulders by a line of 2 mm. circa. The pteryges then are evidently thicker than many others pteryges on different monuments, where it is clear that they were done by different materials like coarse silk mixed with felt, as described in the sources.

I hope really that in the future some people, looking at Roman tombstones like this one ( and not the post), can say : I remember seeing a sculpture that proved that pteryges, in some circumstances, were padded".

The Ancient World is not done by schematic rules, it was various in all aspect of life and material culture. So in the clothing as well as in the armour. The "standard" soldier did not exist. In my opinion therefore the biggest "Factoid" of all is the assertion that the Romans could never have used non metallic forms of body armour. Furthermore this is a fashionable factoid because even in recent Victorian and Edwardian times when leather and felt garments were more common the idea that the Romans used such forms of protection was both commonplace and accepted without question. For Example Curle in his Newstead excavation report categorically stated that the Romans used leather armour.

Best wishes
Dr. Raffaele D’Amato

[Antonius Lucretius]

I don't think that we can determine whether the lappets are padded or not looking at that quite simplified figure. But I agree with Dr d'Amato that some lappets or pteryges may have been padded and that not all subarmalis (subarmalia?) were alike.
I'll trust those that know more than I about the dating of that stela (1st/2nd Centuries AD).
But remains the fact that our man is wearing a sword baldric which is not archaeologically attested until Septimus Severus (correct me if I'm wrong) and carries a double weighted pilum which appeared apparently round the middle of the 2nd century AD.
So either the wide baldric fashion kicked off earlier that previously thought, or the stela is later than previously thought.

[Tarbicus]

So either the wide baldric fashion kicked off earlier that previously thought,

With segmentata fragments found from around 9 BCE, it's not exactly outside the limits of possibility?

[Tasciavanous]

With segmentata fragments found from around 9 BCE, it's not exactly outside the limits of possibility?

Very true. It does lend weight to the Archaeological mantra "lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack".
That said it could be very easy for this one possibly contradictory piece of evidence to become the basis of the "Factoids" that Dr Bishop was warning about earlier in this thread. it would be nice just for once for a truly incontrovertible piece of evidence to come to light

[Praefectusclassis]

a truly incontrovertible piece of evidence

Nah. That's boring :wink:

[Antonius Lucretius]

Nah. That's boring

Hee hee hee hee hee... :lol:

[mcbishop]

The "standard" soldier did not exist. In my opinion therefore the biggest "Factoid" of all is the assertion that the Romans could never have used non metallic forms of body armour. Furthermore this is a fashionable factoid because even in recent Victorian and Edwardian times when leather and felt garments were more common the idea that the Romans used such forms of protection was both commonplace and accepted without question. For Example Curle in his Newstead excavation report categorically stated that the Romans used leather armour.

Ignoring the general impression that we're teaching granny to suck eggs here... ;-) James Curle was a very good archaeologist, but he was actually a solicitor in the Scottish Borders, not a specialist in armour. I think we can take his opinions on leather armour with the same pinch of salt as his trying on the saddle horns thinking they might be armoured shoes: interesting, but proof of nothing. I have never denied that leather armour existed, I just grow exasperated at the dogged insistence of the fettishists in its widespread currency in the face of all the evidence. Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence, but I will remain unconvinced until I see real proof, not speculation. My job as an archaeologist and ancient historian demands that of me.

Mike Bishop

[MARCENTIUS]

Dear Mr. Bishop, also I have the impression sometimes to teach children to eat the ice-cream (especially when I am hearing some guides in Museum...), but it is exactly my job as historian and searcher in the DAI and for the university (I am also a solicitor, fogive me, please) to impose me the search of the total truth, and not only of a part.
H. Russell Robinson was a great specialist in armour, and a good archaeologist too, but this does not prevent him to contradict himself in his works and exactly about the question of the leather armour.
Sources are evidences in archaeology, literary as well as artistic. May be the progressing works in Fayoum (for example) could also produce still existing specimens of leather armour, but in anycase the literary sources are clearer. Then You will agree with me that find pieces of organic armour is not so easy, even if in Mons Claudianus something (like for example the under-helmet) is coming out.
Valerius Maximus remember the heroic Centurio that in Britain, even though burdened by the weight of 2 loricae, safed himself putting in the sea with all the armament. So the cases are: or Valerius Maximus was a liar, or our Centurio wore not-metallic armours.
This is for me a true evidence not speculation. But just the fact that finally You said to not deny the existence of organic armour could be the beginning of a good alliance...

Best wishes

Dr. Raffaele D'Amato

[Antonius Lucretius]

Evidence of leather armour exists in the form of cheek pieces found mounted on a gallic helmet of an unusual type (Osprey's Rome's Enemies, Gallic and British Celts).
From that it can be safely assumed leather was used also for body armor, IMHO.
But until evidence is found --if ever-- I think we won't be able to determine what type of armour mas made of leather (Segmentata, Muscled cuirass or other types).
For reasons explained by Dan I think we can take the segmentata out of the picture. I suspect the vast majority of "organic" armour (leather, horn, or maybe even bone) was of scale or lamellar type. But again, there is no actual proof although ancient writers describe some armour (the Sarmatians for instance) being made of leather or horn scales.
I leave aside the other types of organic armour: the padded or linen based types, of course.

So the cases are: or Valerius Maximus was a liar, or our Centurio wore not-metallic armours.

The case pretty well could be that our centurio jumped into three feet of water... Not a conclusive proof..
The case pretty well could be that Valerius Maximus reported some soldier's tall tale without checking the sources... That happens to soldiers.. And historians.
Remember Horatius Cocles at the bridge?

[MARCENTIUS]

Dear Groucho,
evidence for leather armour exists in many survived pieces of equipment from many parts of Empire. We are collecting there in the new book we are preparing.
About what type of armour was made of leather (Segmentata, Muscled cuirass or other types): I tell You all of them.
For instance, the sarmatian armour represented on the Trajan column pedestal is virtually the same of many Roman soldiers represented in statuettes and monuments of the Hadrianic and Antonine period on, some of them unpublished or published only in very old publications. This armour, in the pedestal of the column, is with all probability of leather, as You can see from the folding of the armour segments represented with a detail like Michelangelo. About the muscled cuirass it was obviously the most used one, especially in late Empire and still for many centuries in the Eastern Empire. Russian soldiers of late Middle Age wore leather muscled armours as well as Italian soldiers of the Comuni, as heritage of Rome and influence from Byzantium. Colour in Roman sculpture helps us to identify when metal and when leather (as in Prima Porta Augustus: white leather with metallic fittings)
Proofs of lamellar and horn scales are from many countries and even from Scythian graves. A East-Roman armour in middle age found in Bulgaria was done by horn scales (dated about IX-X century). The ancient authors have right, but why not, after all?
Valerius Maximus said that the Centurio was swimming after having put himself in water...duabus loricis honustus inter undas....a very strong man (as they were after all) but especially if we think about metallic armour....
Ancient authors like Valerius Maximus and Livius have other sources where find the material and many ancient legends were based upon real truth. I do not have reason to doubt about Cocles. Ancient authors can rely also upon tales of veterans (if contemporaries) or tales preserved in Annales now lost.
Of course we cannot say that Romans won Etruscans in this circumstance but a linen Greek Hoplite Armour as shown in the probable most ancient representation of Cocles is suitable for swimming
Best wishes
Dr. Raffaele D'Amato

[Dan Howard]

3) The padding of the sleeves protection is evident. The sculptor was able enough not only to realise very well the muscled detail of the armour (look the underlining of the signs at the breast level) but he marked the difference among the thickness of the double rows on the shoulders by a line of 2 mm. circa. The pteryges then are evidently thicker than many others pteryges on different monuments, where it is clear that they were done by different materials like coarse silk mixed with felt, as described in the sources.

I'll never understand this. How can you compare sculptures done by different artists? Each artist has his own style and level of skill. It makes absolutely no sense to compare the thicknesses of pteryges that were sculpted by different artists and draw the conclusion that they are made from different materials.