If not ring armour, what is this?

[Felix Wang]

http://www.illerup.dk/documents/illerup_73.pdf

See figure 3 of this article, please. I don't read Danish, but the caption clearly refers to Septimius Severus, and I assume this is a triumphal arch.

What is the man wearing? It certainly looks like ring armour as is known from its (rare) Oriental usage, and is somewhat like the surface of an eyelet doublet. Mail would be the obvious conclusion, but it doesn't much look like other Roman renditions of mail. It does rather resemble some of the Bayeux Tapestry versions of mail; but that is a very different medium (linen embroidery vs. stone sculpture) and a very different artistic tradition. The man is wearing a baldric and sword; so it is less likely this is a civilian garment - and if it is, I still don't know what type of material it could be.

Are there any Danish speakers out there who could assist?

[Dan Howard]

Here is the image.

[J. L. Badgley]

Stylized leopard skin? Just a thought. Severus was from Africa, right? It may have been a way to connect him. Alternatively, I've seen leopard skins mentioned as a potential priestly garment.

[Sylvain Coucharriere]

Anybody know where that sculpture is from, and who (what kind of person) is being depicted?

If it is a warrior in armour, It certainly looks like ringmail... the time is wrong for an ordinary legionary to wear lorica hamata (though auxiliary troops kept being equipped with it if I believe my sources, and it does NOT fit with romans depictions of chainmail.

But without knowing for sure this is indeed armour being represented, all bets are off.

[Matthew Amt]

I believe that is from the Arch of Septimius Severus (his name is in the caption, at least). He is indeed a Roman soldier, and yes, I believe that is mail. The shape of the shirt and the dagged edge is copied from hamatae shown on Trajan's Column. As I understand it, there are other Roman reliefs that use the same method of drilling holes to denote mail.

If it has 4 legs and a mane and says "neigh", why think "zebra"?

Valete,

Matthew

[Sylvain Coucharriere]

Originally posted by Matthew Amt
If it has 4 legs and a mane and says "neigh", why think "zebra"?
Matthew

Because it looks like it might be striped?

Most Roman depictions of mail don't use that technique... and if it's certain it depicts a Roman soldier, I'll follow the opinion that it indeed is an alternative method of depicting mail, but if it's a barbarian warrior, then all bets are off...

[Felix Wang]

The odd thing is that there are other sculptures (i.e. the Ahenobarbus relief http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/index.p...=detail&id=134 ) which show mail that looks very much like mail.

Another figure with stuff that really looks like mail: http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/index.p...=detail&id=473

The arguement seems circular: The Romans wore mail, this man (maybe) is Roman, therefore the stuff he is wearing is mail. Except is doesn't really look like mail, and certainly doesn't look like the other sculptures cited, and it does look like ring armour.

Matthew, you know the Roman sources much better than I. Perhaps you could point me to the appropriate images.

[Dan Howard]

I have seen other reliefs of Roman soldiers with drilled holes in their armour (trying to find examples now). It is commnoly believed to be mail but I don't know enough about interpreting this stuff to give a reason why. You do have to take into account that Roman reliefs and sculptures are usually painted. We don't know how the holes would have looked after the painter had finished with them. Maybe the guys on RAT would know more.

[Felix Wang]

Incidently, this is definitely from the Arch of Septimius Severus, showing something like a segmentata, I suppose:

http://www.livius.org/a/italy/rome/a...severus_06.JPG

[Sylvain Coucharriere]

I studied the document, but could get pretty little... looks like it IS indeed from Septimius Severus' Arch (as opposed to some other bit of sculpture from his period), but I just can't understand the descriptive under the picture... or get a decent translation of it : the few net translation services I've found that are free and offer Danish left key terms (those I don't understand) out...

The point of the illo seem to be round things called "dupsko", two instancesof which are shown beside on the page/.pdf.
the term describing what bears the "dupsko" (and what the guy is wearing) is: Sværdskede. this seems to be a compound word, the first part of which undoubtably means "sword", and the second, "kede", might mean "chain"... but there, I'm extending myself, as I'm working from a similar Swedish word... which might not be relevant at all to the case.

Anybody got access to Danish translating power?

[Johan S. Moen]

Originally posted by Sylvain Coucharriere


The point of the illo seem to be round things called "dupsko", two instancesof which are shown beside on the page/.pdf.
the term describing what bears the "dupsko" (and what the guy is wearing) is: Sværdskede. this seems to be a compound word, the first part of which undoubtably means "sword", and the second, "kede", might mean "chain"... but there, I'm extending myself, as I'm working from a similar Swedish word... which might not be relevant at all to the case.

Anybody got access to Danish translating power?

"Dupsko" means "chape", as in scabbard chape. "Sværdskede" simply means swordscabbard. It is not however compromised of the words sverds+kede, but rather sverd+skede . "Chain" would have been "kjede"(at least in Norwegian, but I'll take my chances on that it is similar in Danish...).

Johan Schubert Moen

[Sylvain Coucharriere]

Originally posted by Johan S. Moen
"Dupsko" means "chape", as in scabbard chape. "Sværdskede" simply means swordscabbard. It is not however compromised of the words sverds+kede, but rather sverd+skede . "Chain" would have been "kjede"(at least in Norwegian, but I'll take my chances on that it is similar in Danish...).

Johan Schubert Moen

so "dupsko is a shape? in context, I thought it might be some kind of phalera.

As for kede, I really can't tell, I was taking my chance it might be related to Swedish "kedja" : chain.

but if Sværdskede means a scabbard...
a) where are the round shapes on the scabbard of that figure?
b) what do you make of the decorative thing depicted on fig 5 which is said to belong to a "sværdophæng"... that is, a "sword (up) hanger"? It does not precisely look like it belongs to a belt buckle.

EDIT : I recant, old Icelandic "Skeid" indeed meant a sheath, so that must indeed be the scabbard.


The more I look at that figure, the more I think it could very well depict some form or ringmail rather than chain : Not only does the armor not look like the more classical Roman depiction of chainmail, but the head does not look like it's wearing a Roman helmet, and the sword depends from a baldric style hanger rather than the usual belt sheath. All of which leads me to believe that figure to be a barbarian enemy rather than a Roman soldier.

[Matthew Amt]

But sword scabbards with circular chapes and wide shoulder baldrics are VERY common on Romans c. 200 AD. And the shape of the shirt doesn't match the earlier classic Roman hamata (thigh-length, straight hem, shoulder yoke) because the style had changed by that time--the short-sleeved, hip-length shirt is common on Trajan's Column and shows up in other artwork as well. On this particular figure, the head is damaged--no way to tell if he was wearing a helmet at all. He's a Roman.

Other Roman art depicting (apparent) mail by means of drilled holes: statue of Gallic warrior 1st century BC; relief of legionaries from Osuna, Spain, c. 1st century BC; a 1st century AD trophy relief in Marseilles (though the holes are triangular); legionaries and cavalrymen on the Adamklissi monument; Arch of Marcus Aurelius (re-used on the Arch of Constantine); and the Column of Marcus Aurelius. Actually, on that last example, the holes are arranged in a neat grid of scribed lines, so it looks even less mail-like than guy from the Arch of Severus.

A very similar texture (shallow holes but looking more punched than drilled) is on a c. 2nd century AD bronze statuette, and on a 3rd century AD grave stela of a cavalryman.

This is all from a quick run-through of Robinson.

I can certainly see how this looks like a circular argument! I'm willing to be open-minded to other forms of armor existing. But we KNOW mail existed and was widely used--we have clear descriptions of it and many, many remaining fragments. We have NOTHING like that for any alternative ring-armor, no descriptions, no loose rings, etc. All we have is artwork which could go either way, much of it from an era in which stylization seems to be growing. Until something more solid turns up, I'm happier just playing it safe and not trusting the artwork too heavily.

Yes, there are certainly other methods the Romans used to depict mail, including showing every ring! Interestingly, the wavy-line method used on the Ahenobarbus altar always used to get called "leather"... But just because WE don't think something looks like mail doesn't mean THEY didn't.

Valete,

Matthew

[Sylvain Coucharriere]

Well... circular argument or not, it all revolves on whether the figure is supposed to be Roman or not.

It is too damaged to be sure about the head, possible helmet, or many details that could tell for that matter, and its being presented from the back does not help either, as it hides more telling details... I can't even tell the exact length of that sword (whether it's a gladius or a longer barbarian sword).

[Matthew Amt]

Originally posted by Sylvain Coucharriere
I can't even tell the exact length of that sword (whether it's a gladius or a longer barbarian sword).

It doesn't hang down quite as far as my 1st century gladius, which has a 19-inch blade:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/Quintus.jpg

(Lousy photo, doesn't show off my stunning good looks!)

Matthew

[Felix Wang]

The absence of physical evidence is a sound arguement. The litererary absence is somewhat less compelling, in my mind, since the Roman written record has some surprising lapses - most obviously, any identifiable name for the segmentata. If that could be omitted, other things might also. It is useful, but somewhat disturbing, to hear the Romans were as careless about the texture of their (presumed) mail as medieval seamstresses.

[Frede Jensen]

According to the author it is indeeed a roman soldier on the picture. He is talking about the Baldric and the sword sheath, and how it is very similar to finds made in Denmark where similar weapons have been found in a bog where they have been sacrificed to the gods after a big battle. Where apparently the danes have used roman swords and other equipment.

- F -

[Felix Wang]

Thank you, Frede.

[Erlend N.]

Just to make it totally clear, a more or less exact complete translation of the text under the picture posted is:

'Sword sheath with round chape on the triumphal arch of Septimus Severus.'

Chape, not shape!

The article seems to discuss the possible geographic origins of some of the material found in the Illerup river valley deposits (I didn't read it all). Some of the material seems to be norwegian, some could be swedish, and some is imported from Rome.

I just want to add that the sculpture in the picture seems a bit crude. It might have been placed quite high up on the arch and be quite small, so the level of detail need not be great. It could well be a somewhat 'primitive' depiction, intended to give a rough impression of mail at some distance or awkward angle.

[Matt Lanteigne]

Originally posted by Matthew Amt
It doesn't hang down quite as far as my 1st century gladius, which has a 19-inch blade:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/Quintus.jpg

(Lousy photo, doesn't show off my stunning good looks!)

Matthew

Your good looks precede you Matt, you don't need pics to show off...hahah!

Besides, you can tell that's a Roman Soldier by the shape of the buttocks. You don't get sculpted cheeks like that unless you do a lot of marching.

[Hugh Fuller]

Originally posted by Matthew Amt
It doesn't hang down quite as far as my 1st century gladius, which has a 19-inch blade:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/Quintus.jpg

(Lousy photo, doesn't show off my stunning good looks!)

Matthew

Matt, it shows your chicken legs, which puts you in great company. In case you had not heard or don't remember, Paul Newman used to be called "Old Chicken Legs" out on the road racing circuit, where he did quite well over the years.