Sertorius Festus Tombstone "sleeves"

[Doc]

Robinson mentions that the tombstone of Sertorius Festus depicts him as having short sleeves with his plumata. When one looks at that tombstone it actually apears that way. But I have been reading and speaking to some other reenactors and I was told that what is depicted is not a sleeve because plumata like hamata in the first century AD did not have sleeves :? Rather the chainmail (or scale mail) would just hang over the shoulder giving the appearence of a sleeve.

Is this true or not. :?: I see most reenactors with their sqaumatas sleeveless and their hamatas sleevless. Sometimes I see the squamata with a Bishop's mantle.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Paolo

[Tarbicus]

I think the question leads to an assumption that armour was uniform. Although I'm fairly convinced there were specification standards (from a letter mentioning it, and for swords), I'm sure there was an amount of variety.

http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/

They do look like deliberate short sleeves IMHO, but very, very short.

[Doc]

Thank you Mr Bowers for the answer. They look delibrate. However, from Dan Peterson's reconstruction he has no sleeves. It appears as if the scales just hang over the shoulder giving the impression of a sleeve.

I thought that maybe this is the same kind of thing on the tombstone only that it was not sculpted that way.

Thanks

Paolo

[Tarbicus]

One thing that concerns me about such sleeves is the practicality of scales on the inner arm and the armpit.

[Doc]

Mr. Bowers,

This is one of the many reasons my question arose aside from the suggested sleevelessness of the 1st Centruy AD


Paolo

[Tarbicus]

Be wary of the depiction, by the way. There are sculptures of others who have just such sleeves on what seems to be musculata :?

And please don't call me Mr. Bowers, it usually means I'm in some sort of trouble :wink:

[Crispvs]

As I have mentioned elsewhere recently, I am a little suspicious about the actual level of knowledge the Sertorii sculptor had of actual military equipment.

I find it hard to believe that squamata could be sufficiently flexible to allow the arms free movement with sleeves as depicted. Therefore I think that some artistic licence or misunderstading has crept into the sculpture, just like the well defined musculature which would not show through an actual squamata (as I am sure Peronis, Robert/Valerius, Dan, Madoc etc. will agree). I could be persuaded however, that the border around the bottom edges of the sleeves may be intended to represent a strap which could hold a flap covered in scales close to the arm for improved protection.

On the front of the sleevelessness or otherwise of first century AD mail, as an exercise, next time a re-enactor tells you that this or that was or was not done in a particular period, ask him to cite his sources. Make sure he gives an extensive list. In a case like this where someone says that mail in the first century did not have sleeves, I would casually ask the person if I could borrow his time machine so I could gain the same faultless knowledge of what the ancients actually looked like that he had, rather than having to make reasonable guesses from chance archaeological finds and ambiguous sculptures. Very few things about the equipment of the Roman army are this cut and dried but many people are quite happy to base assumptions on very meagre selections of evidence.

Crispvs (the sworn enemy of groundless assumptions)

[Tarbicus]

That all assumes such sculptures were modelled post mortem, and not based on the actual person as originally drawn by the artist while they were alive. Either way, there is a great element of assumption.

[Crispvs]

Oh, I'm not saying that the sculptor hadn't seen the real thing or met the actual men. Of course it is possible but it could be that he met them but that by the time (possible a week or two later) he carved some details he may have been let down by his lack of intimate knowledge of what he remembered and romanticised a bit. After all, he didn't get the curve of the squamata around the body right and ended up giving it musculature. The face is probably the detail which would be done first if the sculpture was to resemble the actual man so we can possibly take it that the face, as originally carved, may have looked like the man himself. However I think that many other details are romanticised or misunderstood. If Festus had the foresight to pose for a sculptor prior to death did he wear his armour? I don't know, but I can see things which don't seem to reflect hard reality. Therefore I do not take everything at face value.

Perhaps it might be true to say that whilst I am an enemy of baseless assumption I do see the value of careful supposition.

Crispvs

[Tarbicus]

This whole subject of how the tombstones were done, etc, does keep cropping up. One thing that makes me err towards accuracy is so often in the detail. Specifically, I mean the correlation between, e.g., pugiones both sculpted and dug up from the ground. I personally feel that such detail supports an argument the stones are incredibly accurate. You can include swords in that as well.

The muscular chainmail and scale is also often mentioned as evidence of stylisation. Bear in mind though that for all we know, at certain periods, just a tunic may have been all that was felt to be required below the armour, with perhaps a single layer of linen for a subarmalis between. Most would decry that as nonsense, but I don't see many re-enactors with braziers of burning coals on top of their helmets to scare the enemy witless. Sounds unlikely and nuts, but it's attested to.

Going back to an earlier post where I mention being wary about the musculata with sleeves - perhaps it was painted chainmail?

[Doc]

I contacted the museum where Sertorius is in Itlay and was given an artists drawing of the tombstone. According to the professor there, this drawing is the best wtih respect to showing details.

I saw from the drawing that there is, starting from the neck to nearly the bottom of the chest, a curving of the scales. The curve is more pronounced at the top and decreases as one goes toward the lower part of the chest.

I cannot post the photo since my older computer crashed and I lost everything that was on it.

Sculpture can be at the whim of the artist. However, in the absence of a camera I would tend to believe that the sculptures are telling us "a" certain truth about the person they depict.

Nonetheless, we must also remember that the best of a society would nearly always be depicted. To this end an accurate representation of a centruion, with his armor and awards is not far fetched.

We all know that the Romans sometimes stretched the truth so it is plausible that a Roman sculpture can do the same. But again I think that the wealthy had the money to make themselves immortal through sculpture and that they would wear their best to be captured that way.

Sertorius could have been immortalized in that fashion not only because he might have been wealthy but also if one takes into consideration that he has a corona (aurea or civica) he might have also been a distinguised person that could have commisioned, before he died, a sculpture that captures him in his "glory" making what you see most likely what he owned and probably wore.

Just food for thought

Paolo

[Erik D. Schmid]

As I have mentioned elsewhere recently, I am a little suspicious about the actual level of knowledge the Sertorii sculptor had of actual military equipment.

I find it hard to believe that squamata could be sufficiently flexible to allow the arms free movement with sleeves as depicted. Therefore I think that some artistic licence or misunderstading has crept into the sculpture, just like the well defined musculature which would not show through an actual squamata (as I am sure Peronis, Robert/Valerius, Dan, Madoc etc. will agree). I could be persuaded however, that the border around the bottom edges of the sleeves may be intended to represent a strap which could hold a flap covered in scales close to the arm for improved protection.

Crispvs (the sworn enemy of groundless assumptions)

Exactly. But, on the other hand, using a mantle-top style shirt would allow for a faux-sleeve if you will. This would be sufficient for the use of "edging" around the entire sleeve. With Squamata this is easier since you are dealing with a fabric base. It allows more freedom of scale placement. Plumata on the other hand does not. It is very specific as to the placement of scales due to the method of construction used in its manufacture. If done right, it would give a look of sleeves without there actually being true sleeves. It will be interesting to say the least.