10-21-2006, 10:18 AM
I apologize with all the members of this Forum.
My intent wasn’t to instigate a discussion on the leather caresses, but on the methods of investigation and experimentation.
About the sources on the Coriis Tegimenta, I am preparing a brief publication in Italian and English. I will warn the parties in the your specific Topic.
The principle that the archaeological attestation is the only valid to confirm a thesis, and that the literary, epigraphic or iconographic sources "alone" doesn't constitute a probation, it is simply ridiculous.
If we doubted the 'only written' revelations we should doubt about the 80% of that we know about the Roman civilization (we have to remember the immense contribution of the papirology and the CIL, without which we would not know almost anything of the Roman army).
It is certain that such "written" subject needs the careful analysis of the glottologist and the philologist, and also of a Historian able to give a global context to the document, and therefore to recognize its validity.
Nevertheless I would like to do to notice that the archaeological attestation is not mostly sure of that literary, despite the 'physics' presence of the find.
For exemple: who can affirm with certainty that the fragments of metallic segs belonged to the legionaries? Aalen, Carlisle and even Corbridge open interesting considerations toward other military departments.
It can be objected that the iconography confirms the presence of caresses to segments on the milites. Nevertheless just ‘1’ detail among the hundred representations of this caress on the various reliefs, underlines acceptable similes (in the Trajan Column).
Literature doesn't help certain the irons segs, to exception of the "oven for the bread" (clibanus) attributed to the heavy cavalry or perhaps to special Auxilia (so beginning from Augustus). The written sources, contrarily, systematically underline the Hamatae (confirmed by the archaeological attestations) and the organic caresses (not individualize by archaeology).
It derives that a reconstruction based on the archaeology only, start from the presupposition of the incompleteness and the uncertainty in the attribution of the piece. Unless were found whole groupings of legionaries, completely armed (segs include). But this it isn’t.
When in the '98 began the work on the Gladiatura with the dear friend Marcus Junkelmann, we had the same problem: archaeology attested a lot of metallic helmets and greaves, an only metallic parmula and little other accessories: these were the archaeological residue of that fantastic world.
But ArsDimicandi and Marcus has reconstructed that world perfectly, founding the works on the literature and the iconography largely. This choice is visible in many exact and functionally materials from us reconstructed, made of wood, leather, felt and quilts not currently attested by the archaeology. The technique reconstruction besides, it’s better more.
Dear CaiusTarquitius
Experimental archaeology reconstructs Neolithic huts of whose structure, doesn't remain the least material trace.
The residual data or rather, the peculiarities of the holes in the ground, the type of climate and flora of that place, represents the traces from which it is possible to reconstruct an experimental product. Following the same constructive and destructive way of the huts, the result it has to come to correspond to the residual traces.
ArsDimicandi applies the principle in the same way: the residual traces are the punctual descriptions of the literature and some iconographic references.
Also in our case the ‘experimental product’ (as the Neolithic huts reconstructed), represents the most probable and reliable result in comparison to the original subject.
My intent wasn’t to instigate a discussion on the leather caresses, but on the methods of investigation and experimentation.
About the sources on the Coriis Tegimenta, I am preparing a brief publication in Italian and English. I will warn the parties in the your specific Topic.
The principle that the archaeological attestation is the only valid to confirm a thesis, and that the literary, epigraphic or iconographic sources "alone" doesn't constitute a probation, it is simply ridiculous.
If we doubted the 'only written' revelations we should doubt about the 80% of that we know about the Roman civilization (we have to remember the immense contribution of the papirology and the CIL, without which we would not know almost anything of the Roman army).
It is certain that such "written" subject needs the careful analysis of the glottologist and the philologist, and also of a Historian able to give a global context to the document, and therefore to recognize its validity.
Nevertheless I would like to do to notice that the archaeological attestation is not mostly sure of that literary, despite the 'physics' presence of the find.
For exemple: who can affirm with certainty that the fragments of metallic segs belonged to the legionaries? Aalen, Carlisle and even Corbridge open interesting considerations toward other military departments.
It can be objected that the iconography confirms the presence of caresses to segments on the milites. Nevertheless just ‘1’ detail among the hundred representations of this caress on the various reliefs, underlines acceptable similes (in the Trajan Column).
Literature doesn't help certain the irons segs, to exception of the "oven for the bread" (clibanus) attributed to the heavy cavalry or perhaps to special Auxilia (so beginning from Augustus). The written sources, contrarily, systematically underline the Hamatae (confirmed by the archaeological attestations) and the organic caresses (not individualize by archaeology).
It derives that a reconstruction based on the archaeology only, start from the presupposition of the incompleteness and the uncertainty in the attribution of the piece. Unless were found whole groupings of legionaries, completely armed (segs include). But this it isn’t.
When in the '98 began the work on the Gladiatura with the dear friend Marcus Junkelmann, we had the same problem: archaeology attested a lot of metallic helmets and greaves, an only metallic parmula and little other accessories: these were the archaeological residue of that fantastic world.
But ArsDimicandi and Marcus has reconstructed that world perfectly, founding the works on the literature and the iconography largely. This choice is visible in many exact and functionally materials from us reconstructed, made of wood, leather, felt and quilts not currently attested by the archaeology. The technique reconstruction besides, it’s better more.
Dear CaiusTarquitius
Experimental archaeology reconstructs Neolithic huts of whose structure, doesn't remain the least material trace.
The residual data or rather, the peculiarities of the holes in the ground, the type of climate and flora of that place, represents the traces from which it is possible to reconstruct an experimental product. Following the same constructive and destructive way of the huts, the result it has to come to correspond to the residual traces.
ArsDimicandi applies the principle in the same way: the residual traces are the punctual descriptions of the literature and some iconographic references.
Also in our case the ‘experimental product’ (as the Neolithic huts reconstructed), represents the most probable and reliable result in comparison to the original subject.
