Melvadius

In case anyone in Britain is interested in seeing cavalry reenactors in action there is a Roman Cavalry unit attached to Comitatus and they are due to put on a display during next Weekends Bank Holiday at Maryport. From their website:

Thanks for spotting that Ursus moved as requested.

That is one of the aspects about the books mentioned above which I liked. They all make reference to some degree to limitations of the various forms of available evidence. The Alba Julia armour is a primary case in point of issues surrounding sculptoral evidence being basically only known from a single piece of sculpture.

There are some useful reference books on the subject of Roman Armour which you may be able to find: H Russell Robinson (1975) The Armour of Imperial Rome, Purnell Book Services provided one of the first overviews of the topic using both iconography and archaeological remains This was updated by the following: M.C. Bishop (2002) Lorica Segmentata Vol 1: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour JRMES Monograph No 1 The Armatura Press and the companion volume M D Thomas (2003) Lorica Segmentata Vol II: A Catalogue of Finds JRMES Monograph No 2 The Armatura Press There is a more recent work by the Travis's archaeologist and reenactor husband and wife team which I have only skimmed but seems to argue for some changes in previous interpretations of how lorica segmentata was put together and how it was used. H & J Travis (2011) Roman Body Armour, Amberly Bishop and Thomas' books provide very detailed discussion of the evidence for lorica segmentata although less so to hamarta and squamata although Robinson noted that squamata had been used by the Romans for around eight centuries. The Travis' book argues against some of the earlier findings making the point that, since they have been categorised on the basis of fragmentary remains, the four basic 'types' of lorica segmentata probably had numerous regional and local variations depending upon the workshop in which it was made (pgs 42-43). They do include a basic timeline which indicates approximate dates of the lorica segmentata variants as follows: Kalkriese - 10BC to AD 50 Corbridge - AD 40-140 Newstead - AD 130-230 Alba Julia - AD 200-240 It is worth noting that in their discussion the Travis' make the point that segmentata may never have been as universally used by the legions as is usually suggested. As Caldrail has said above they state that it probably fell out of use in the third to fourth centuries but probably went through a period of rationalisation of components and possibly ending up in a composite form of scale and mail as suggested by the Alba Julia sculpture.

I accept the possibility and would like to beleive you but I cannot find anything amongst my sources OR online which really confirm this statement.

No, I simply pointed out that the only review I could find for this work indicates that his primary interest is Rome's relations with the Near East and not China AND that he had not made use of literary sources which appeared some what at odds with your declarations in previous posts. Not having read his work in it's entirity myself I do not comment on how well or otherwise he may have achieved his primary aim but as I have already indicated with a quick scan I could not find any significant mentions of Pliny, or indeed any of the other literay sources my own references cite, amongst his references so if I missed them I apologise. I have already cited the relevant reference in Pliny I did find a Latin version on Lacus Curtius but the only English version I could easily find is the Holland 1601 version on Tufts which is not as clear as the Loeb translation. There are strings of caravanserais dating from at least the thirteenth century known to exist along what is known as the Silk Road. Given the long history of trade between China and the west these can only have been the latest incarnation of earlier way stations, trading centres and other places convenient to stop along the routes. BTW I take serious issue with any source deciding arbitarilly that for the Silk Road to have existed then there 'must' have been 'free' trade along it. 'Free' trade has never been a requirement for people to make use of long distance trading routes - only the bottom line of could they make a profit. The 'Silk Road' has only ever been a convenient term for the series of overland routes along which trade could AND did actually pass between China and the West for at least two thousand years no more no less. You may find some of the articles at About.com of interest on the topic of trade between China and the West. Plus this more recent article from Stamford University on the smuggling of silk worms from China to

Gilius that particular book is primarily interested in and discussing the interaction between Rome and the Near East not the Far East asthis review from History in Review makes clear. It specifically states that: For this reason any mention of Rome's interaction with China is entirely secondary to the main purpose of the book. I had a quick check and as the review infdicates there is a marked lack of literary evidence mentioned by Ball and he doesn't appear to make any reference to the section of Pliny I referred to above (Loeb edition) describing the overland route. If you do read it you will quickly see that in Pliny's period there was a reasonably good knowledge of the main elements of the overland routes to both China and India. In my view this argues for traders making us of them on a fairly regular basis and that information being readily available to Pliny at least second-hand if not through personal research. Even if only a relatively small groups of traders operated along it at any one time and most goods were exchanged between them rather than going with one group the entire length does not negate the fact that the Silk Road did exist as a 'real' physical entity which saw a lot of use over the Millenias. As the maps above indicate throughout the last 2,000 plus years there were several routes which could be used to carry goods along the 'Silk Route'. Depending upon the season, what was being traded, the intended destination and various political events or wars sections of it were opened and closed or simply used at different times and for different purposes. If you were expecting something paved in gold or simply in tarmac for its entire length then you still wouldn't find it today.

GOC, Well apart from the officers' armour having the distinct look of being made from leather rather than metal and very uncomfortably 'square' edged rather than rounded saddle horns I ccouldn't imagine.... Unless of course could it possibly be something to do with there being no exterior defensive wall on the tower and less certainly but possibly also access to the tower apparently being by a ladder intended to enter the tower by being placed immediately behind the gate? GPM, I think you may have been looking at the Lunt photo by mistake

See previous post and name them

Obviously anyone making such statements has never read Pliny Natural History VI, XX et. seq.

'Weisenau' (German)/ Imperial Gallic (After Robinson) are two different names for the same types of helmets and yes they do go back to Augustus 'if' you combine all of the variations as one group. However unlike Germany Robinson sub-divided the group and it is only the later variants including one from Theilenhofen which have evidence for the reinforcing cross-bars. Even in Germany these are normally called Late Weisenau types.

Thanks for that having now checked the reference the problem with allocating the Berzobis and Sz

Not in this case I would like archaeological evidence of find spot and context.

I like it more when people provide verifiable sources for contentions which seem to fly in the face of all accepted evidence.

Live Science is carrying an article about an intriguing ceramic jar currently on display 'at the Museum of Ontario Archaeology as part of an exhibit on Ur and Roman Britain. The show runs through the first week of September.' The provenance of the jar is uncertain and it literally could come from either Roman Britain or ancient Ur. Although various suggestions about its possible intended use have been made it currently appears totally unlike anything else which is known from either area or period. Personally I would have thought that in addition to sending round photographs of the reconstructed jar they should also have been sending round examples/ photographs of the fabric of the jar so ceramic experts could provide advise on whether it comes from any particular period/ location that they are aware of.

Erm I have heard it suggested that they actually taught them using Soviet rather than German tanks ...... Having jsut checked Wikipedia cites Zaloga, Steve (1989) The Red Army of the Great Patriotic War, 1941

I fully accept that brow ridges could have had both a military as well as more 'decorative' function but as you should have realised from the links I provided I never suggested that they were an 'actual' battlefield modification reacting to the Dacian Campaign which is what we have been discussing. Having come across him on several occasions in the Classics library and at Roman related conferences I can confirm how much research normally goes into Peter Connolly

This abstract in Astronomical Heritage by Guilio Magli may be of interest as it includes a photograph of the main 'hierophany' on 21 April when the area above the door is illuminated by light from the oculus. A similar event apparently occurs during the August equinox. EDIT: BTW the article has a link to the full thesis by Magli and Hannah via Cornell University library 'The role of the sun in the Pantheon

This BBC headline indicating that this is 'new' discovery is a bit of a misnomer as the suggestion that pre-Roman invasion Silchester was planned has been circulating (at least amongst the archaeological community) for several years now. However the linked item where 'Prof Mike Fulford will be talking to Dr Alice Roberts in the latest series of Digging For Britain on BBC Two in September' should still be worth a look especially if this is news to you.

It is one of the usual assumptions which is not necessarily fully supported by either monumental or archaeological evidence. For several years I have seen some authors start to suggest that both armour and helmets may have been passed around between different units, both auxilliary and legionary. A few even suggesting, as an explanation for some atypical archeological evidence, that military equipment moved from 'better' to 'lesser' units as improvements were made and replacements issued. I am not totally convinced by this as a viable explanation in every instance. There does seem to be a preference for coolis type helmets and either lorica hamata (chain or ring mail) or lorica squamata (scale mail) amongst auxcilliaries while the legions went through various periods of preference for a type of lorica hamama, lorica segmentata (segmented plates) and only later changed to a preference for lorica squamata. The version of 'chainmail' with shoulder protection does seem to have been fairly consistently associated with legionary rather than auxilliary units likewise the legion seem to have prefered the various 'Imperial Gallic' or 'Imperial Italic' helmet types. It is possible that rather than there being a definitive 'uniform' that individuals were charged different rates for different types of equipment. If this was the case then auxilliaries, as is well attested, being paid less than their legionary or cavalry equivalents would have been drawn to the 'cheaper' options. It is also worth noting that Campbell in his The Roman Army, 31 BC-AD 337: A Sourcebook lists several examples of individuals pursuing promotion routes through multiple types of units not necessartily confined to 'regular' legion or auxilliary units. Unusual types of equipment may therefore have moved between units along with their owners if they were promoted/ transferred between legionary and auxilliary units/ or simply were assigned for a short period to a different unit alternatively receiving a major payout may have allowed auxilliaries to pay for better equipment and legionarries amy have felt that other types of equipment were easier to use or gave more protection. A major factor with the funerary evidence from memorial stones is that they seem in several instances, at laast in civilan versions, to have been premade to a standard template and only miimally adapted. So someone with enough cash in their funeral fund could have been restricted to whatever image and style of equipment the local carver decided to make as a 'generic' form rather than being a 'true' reflection of the particular equipment the deceased may have actually used.

I'm afraid that you are mixing up the use of decorative 'brow' ridges, used notably with several of the Imperial Gallic style helmets, with the battlefield modifications used only on the later Imperial Italic helmets which can be precisely dated as a reaction to the Dacian Campaign. Unfortunately the Armamentarium website does not appear to have been significantly updated, as it was originally intended to be, since 1997 but is still has a useful link to an article on a museum example of an Imperial Gallic D helmet showing the brow ridges common in this helmet type in the (Pre-Dacian campaign) period and without any cross-helmet reinforcing ridges. The Legio VI website has a good article on the different types of Roman helmets showing reconstructed examples using the same classification system which is commonly used in English language publications initiated by Robinson back in his 1975 work. Note how it is only the later Imperial Italic types which have any evidence for the cross-helmet added or designed reinforcing.

Like Caldrail I haven't heard of this particular vulnerability however I believe the usual suggestion is that the Romans may have issued gladiator style arm defences to some troops and also leg greaves for the same reason. What is definitely known from the period is that the Romans' felt their helmets were particularly vulnerable to the weapons used by the Dacian's (ie the falx) for which reason around this period helmets some have been found with crossed metal bars retrofitted across their top. I suspect that this meotope from the Adamclisi monument shows one of these reinforced helmets in use. This conflict actually led to permanent changes to Roman helmets with later versions generally incorporating some forms of reinforcing strips, eventually becoming to some extent a 'decorative' feature

If the series runs the same as last year they will break it down into separate time periods at least one of which will include some potentially very important mesolithic excavation by Biggar archaeologists but Roman excavations and related items will also feature: I found this reference to them filming at Folkestone History Resource Centre and at the Villa dig site last June. In a previous thread I mentioned further research at the Yewden Villa site at Hambleden related to the baby burials found there and as stated in this BBC article apparently it also is going to feature in the new series. Edit - Recent discoveries at Silchester will also feature as per this article on the BBC

Also mentioned by the BBC here as one of several tie-in articles to their new 'Digging for Britain' series.

Google news is carrying an AFP article with some good photographs about ongoing excavations in Sofia of the orignal Roman town 'Ulpia Serdica'.