Pteruges

[Robert Vermaat]

You mean these?
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... G_3390.jpg
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... G_3391.jpg
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... G_3030.jpg

Sorry, I can't seem to open the images....

[aitor iriarte]

Nor can I...

Aitor

[tlclark]

Crud. I just tried them and they worked, now they don't.

Let me try this again.

Any suggestions?

Update:

Ok, I think I fixed the links.

Try these

http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... G_3030.jpg

http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... G_3390.jpg

http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... G_3391.jpg

[aitor iriarte]

Now they work, thanks, Travis!
Yes I meant those fortifications and the gate under the 'Hanging Church'.
I was at St. Katherine too. It deserved more time than that I had then. Some of the icons inside the church's porch showed interesting armour features but there wasn't enough light to take pics!

Aitor

[Theodosius the Great]

I just spotted this rare example showing "tongue" pteruges with two rows of waist pteruges. The shoulders also have two rows 8)

[tlclark]

Neat!

Where is this from?

As always, MA is always shown in the more conventional cavalry boots, and not the more elaborate kind. It must've been a decree it's so dang dogmatic.

Was MA stressing his military experience?

Also he's holding the sheath to the parazonium in one hand with the sword drawn in the other! Never seen that before!

I have seen two tier kilts of pteruges with tongue pteruges, it's just VERY rare. However, I've NEVER seen two tier shoulder pteruges.

Thanks.

neat stuff.

Travis

[Robert Vermaat]

How about this one? It's a diptych from Honorius:

[tlclark]

Wow!

Neat stuff.

This is late so we can't say for sure, but it really is exciting.

Check out the tongue pteruges. Notice how they seem to be part of the same piece as the cuirass!! This would add further evidence to the idea that they are made of leather in my opinion. Notice also that the shoulders come down to COVER the upper shoulders! No way that's metal. Yet this is clearly a musculata.

Cool!

I can't take credit for this. Tarbicus (Jim) actually forwarded an image of septimus severus from the British Museum to me and asked me if I thought that this could be the case. I looked at it and my first gut reaction was "no" then I had to check my images and then I changed my position to a firm "maybe". The early images clearly seem to have a separate leather girdle of tongue pteruges under a metal cuirass, but the later ones are far more ambiguous.

Keep'em coming!!

Travis

[FlaviusCrispus]

Re. the Honorius diptych, there is good reason to suspect that these pieces, like the equally famous Symmachus sacrificial panel, are Renaissance forgeries by an artist whose enterprise and ingenuity far exceeded his skill. That's the opinion of Dr. Jerry Eisenberg, who wrote a long and thoughtful article on these pieces a few years ago in Minerva magazine. They might have been (poorly and sloppily) copied from actual pieces which have since been lost, or wholly created to match other the famous Stilicho panels and other Late Roman-early Byzantine ivories.

One of the reasons for identifying it as such is that the artist has only a vague concept of how the muscle cuirass is supposed to work. Not only does he have the "tongue pteruges" (or "lappets," as I've called them) as continuations of the cuirass, rather that protruding from under the lower rim of the cuirass as seen in virtually all other representations, each "tongue" is rather curiously deocrated with a fleur-de-lis pattern, something that rarely, if ever occurs in Roman art (but was widespread by the Renaissance); also, note how the upper shoulders of the cuirass actually continue right on over the wearer's shoulders— even if this were boiled leather, it would virtually preclude him from raising his arms even to chest level. Finally, he is wearing a sword (with the hilt rather badly copied from the Stilicho ivory) suspended from a baldric, which is something almost never seen on depictions of an officer (or emperor) wearing a muscle cuirass. Moreover, the art is exceedingly ill-proportioned and "clunky," even by late Roman standards (compare it to the elegant Stilicho diptych), so even if genuine, the artist's veracity and his ability to depict something from real life iis questionable, to say the least.

[tlclark]

Re. the Honorius diptych, there is good reason to suspect that these pieces, like the equally famous Symmachus sacrificial panel, are Renaissance forgeries by an artist whose enterprise and ingenuity far exceeded his skill.

Having never seen the Honorius diptych in person I can't say, but the Nicomachi/Symachi diptych is almost certainly not a forgery. Both Lawrence Nees and Dale Kinney, two late antique specialists have looked into this. Rather what the symmachi diptych reveals is the presence of several stylistic varieties in the late Antique period. This is attested to by several other objects, the projecta casket, the famous David Plates and many other late period objects from the Sveso and Mildenhall Treasures.

I suppose we could never know for sure without a carbon-14 test, but I doubt that will be forthcoming.

I will have to look over Eisenberg's reasons for doubting the Symmachi diptych.

One of the reasons for identifying it as such is that the artist has only a vague concept of how the muscle cuirass is supposed to work.

Now I have no investment in its authenticity, but let me play Devil's advocate here for a minute. Perhaps it's not the artist that has a vague understanding of the musculata, but us.

Not only does he have the "tongue pteruges" (or "lappets," as I've called them) as continuations of the cuirass, rather that protruding from under the lower rim of the cuirass as seen in virtually all other representations,

"virtually" being the operative word. I have seen other examples, but they are all late. By the late period stylistic variation increases. Making judgements on late period images is tricky precisely for this reason. Side seams and hinges disappear almost entirely from all representations of the musculata after the 2nd century. Does that mean they don't exist? or rather that the artistic conventions have excluded them.

each "tongue" is rather curiously deocrated with a fleur-de-lis pattern, something that rarely, if ever occurs in Roman art (but was widespread by the Renaissance); also, note how the upper shoulders of the cuirass actually continue right on over the wearer's shoulders— even if this were boiled leather, it would virtually preclude him from raising his arms even to chest level. Finally, he is wearing a sword (with the hilt rather badly copied from the Stilicho ivory) suspended from a baldric, which is something almost never seen on depictions of an officer (or emperor) wearing a muscle cuirass.

All good points, it certainly is an isolate if authentic, but telling the difference between an excellent forgery and an isolate is extremely difficult. Comparing it to the Stilicho panel it doesn't seem to be copied from that image, but I would have to see them side by side.

Moreover, the art is exceedingly ill-proportioned and "clunky," even by late Roman standards (compare it to the elegant Stilicho diptych), so even if genuine, the artist's veracity and his ability to depict something from real life iis questionable, to say the least.

Well I think that's a subjective argument. The stilicho diptych has many features that could be described as 'clunky', but I see your point.

Great post! Thanks.

[FlaviusCrispus]

Having never seen the Honorius diptych in person I can't say, but the Nicomachi/Symachi diptych is almost certainly not a forgery. Both Lawrence Nees and Dale Kinney, two late antique specialists have looked into this. Rather what the symmachi diptych reveals is the presence of several stylistic varieties in the late Antique period. This is attested to by several other objects, the projecta casket, the famous David Plates and many other late period objects from the Sveso and Mildenhall Treasures.

Eisenberg's contention is that the left, heavily damaged panel of the Symmachus diptych is authentic, but that the right panel is a poor Renaissance copy, perhaps of a badly damaged or fragmented right panel (I may have my right and left switched here, but you get the point). They don't match up at all, stylistically. There are so many things about the questionable panel that simply don't make sense, even in the context of late Antique art, that once you read his arguments, it's impossible to look at the piece quite the same way again.

Now I have no investment in its authenticity, but let me play Devil's advocate here for a minute. Perhaps it's not the artist that has a vague understanding of the musculata, but us.

OK, but compare this musculata to, say, the roughly contemporary one worn by the Colossus of Barletta (probably Valens or Valentinian I, but possibly Marcian). In one case, you're looking at a piece of armor that seems to make sense (no covering for the upper arms, for example), in another, obviously not. I would posit that in one case, you have an artist who is working from life and understands what he is looking at; in another, you have an artist "vamping" from his memory and/or imagination.

I just don't think you can look at every rather odd, wacky late Roman depiction of a muscle cuirass and say, "ah ha! — more evidence it was made from leather!" I think in many, if not most cases, it's just more evidence that the artist hadn't seen someone wearing a real muscle cuirass in a long time and was simply going from his memory, imagination and a perhaps flawed interpretation of other sculptures, paintings or whatnot.

Well I think that's a subjective argument. The stilicho diptych has many features that could be described as 'clunky', but I see your point.

While the Stilicho diptych shows a lot of Late Roman stylistic conventions (frontality and whatnot), it is in many respects well-proportioned and fully in the classical tradition. In any case it is beautififully cut and finished (note the delicate tracery of lines on Stilicho's tunic, indicating embroidery). The manner of cutting, the poses and proportions of the figures, the representation of clothing, everything is drastically different on the Honorius panels. Much of it is ill-defined and unfinished looking (what is going on with the handle on the inside of the shield, for example?). Of course, this doesn't automatically mean that the Honorius panels are fakes, it just means they were made by a less-skilled artist, whether in the fifth or fifteenth centuries.

[Robert Vermaat]

Finally, he is wearing a sword (with the hilt rather badly copied from the Stilicho ivory) suspended from a baldric, which is something almost never seen on depictions of an officer (or emperor) wearing a muscle cuirass.

Good point, but the sword is not a copy from the Stilicho diptych:


However, I have seen a sword like that, today as it happens, it's from a statue..

[Theodosius the Great]

Neat!

Where is this from?

Hi Travis,

It's in Copenhagen. How did it get there ?! :lol:

[url:3ss1avxi]http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/000Free/000Survivors/source/47.html[/url]

As always, MA is always shown in the more conventional cavalry boots, and not the more elaborate kind. It must've been a decree it's so dang dogmatic

Oh, you mean he's not wearing the boots with the Lion heads ? I would think MA was playing down his military experience, since those elaborate ones were worn by experienced Emperors like Trajan and Hadrian.

Also he's holding the sheath to the parazonium in one hand with the sword drawn in the other! Never seen that before!

Cool, now I have a new pose I can use

However, I've NEVER seen two tier shoulder pteruges.

Until I found this image of MA, I've only seen them in Late Roman art. But now I guess they can be dated to the 2nd century, assuming this statue hasn't been heavily restored.

Hi Flavius,

Finally, he is wearing a sword (with the hilt rather badly copied from the Stilicho ivory) suspended from a baldric, which is something almost never seen on depictions of an officer (or emperor) wearing a muscle cuirass

The earliest possible example I've seen of an officer wearing a baldric is this one from Travis' website :



This is dated to the early 3rd C. As you can see, he's wearing scales but in the shape of a musculata if you look at the bottom.

BTW, is that supposed to be a baldric for a gladius or a parazonium ?

[FlaviusCrispus]

Finally, he is wearing a sword (with the hilt rather badly copied from the Stilicho ivory) suspended from a baldric, which is something almost never seen on depictions of an officer (or emperor) wearing a muscle cuirass.

Good point, but the sword is not a copy from the Stilicho diptych:


However, I have seen a sword like that, today as it happens, it's from a statue..

I'm talking about the sword from the left Honorius panel, not the eagle-headed one on the right. It does resemble the Stilicho handle/hilt, but on closer examination, not as closely as I thought.

The eagle-headed hilt could be a knock-off from the Tetrarchic statue in Saint Mark's...

The earliest possible example I've seen of an officer wearing a baldric is this one from Travis' website...

Yeah, they do occurr, but usually in a battle context (as seen here). Have you seen one of an officer wearing a baldric and sword just standing and posing, so to speak?

[Theodosius the Great]

Have you seen one of an officer wearing a baldric and sword just standing and posing, so to speak?

Only in Late Roman art like those showing Honorius and this one of Constantine (again from Travis' excellent site) :



BTW Flavius,

How about this ivory piece of work (showing Justinian ?) ? Is this another bad copy like the Honorius one ? It has similar features.