On
pteryges:
I have seen them most recently discussed in an article "Fragments of Linen from Masada,
Israel", by Hero Granger-Taylor, in a book I recently bought, "Wearing the Cloak: Dressing the Soldier in
Roman Times", edited by M-L Nosch, Oxbow Books, 2012.
Granger-Taylor notes that the term was used in the 4th c BC in Xenophon's Anabasis (4.7.15) in a comparison of the armour of the
Greeks vs. the Chalybes. Hence it is an ancient term.
He further notes that portrayals of
Roman cuirasses, presumably bronze, with
pteryges are common from at least 1st c BC to the end of the Empire. It is unclear if they were attached to the bronze
cuirass or if they were
part of the padded undergarment (i.e. a thoracomachus). Much ink has been spilled on that debate with no incontrovertible fact existing to decide the issue. Starting with paintings at
Dura Europos, circa mid-3rd century,
pteryges are also found with
scale armour (
lorica squamata). This apparently became the norm in the
Byzantine period.
On the issue of
bust types:
Years of head-scratching have led me to the same conclusion
Curtis mentioned, namely that it might be true too that under
Constantine "many busts that at first glance might appear to be draped only turn out on closer inspection to actually be draped and
cuirassed".
I too have not done a full examination of the issue. What seems clear though is that there is much confusion in the sources about the question. The very fact that Lech raised the issue demonstrates that.
As far as I recall the question of exactly what design elements - that is what lines or marks in detail - constitutes the difference between
cuirassed versus draped and
cuirassed, is not discussed in any
RIC volume, just the general points. I do not own Bastien's book on
bust types but I did peruse it a couple of years ago. I do not remember finding such details in it either. I might have missed them as I did not have unlimited time with the volume but I certainly did not find any clear diagrams.
Some of the difficulties in the
attribution have already been noted.
If the only difference is the existence of
pteryges then there is a risk that worn coins, worn dies or even the odd short-cut by a lazy or time-pressed engraver will yield a coin that does not show
pteryges but that is
still meant to be
cuirassed and draped, not draped only.
What the top line, on back or front, is meant to denote is not sometime we can know for certain. Personally I would find it hard to believe that two busts for which the only difference is that one has a wavy line at the top of the chest or back and the other a straight line would constitute different busts or different issues.
Furthermore, efforts to determine exactly what
Roman armour would look like under a cloak are hampered by several issues - artistic/stylistic factors may mean that we are not seeing an exact rendering, archaic/heroic armours, as opposed to actual
contemporary armours, might be portrayed, thus the design might not actually be based on anything "real".
Now none of this prevents people for categorizing the designs. It is possible, perhaps even desirable, to be more descriptive and less prescriptive in our typology. In other words to break down the busts by exactly what is shown - maybe by assigning variety numbers to different forms of neckline, etc. - but not to assume that such differences are more than simply stylistic. This is exactly what I would like to see done with respect to late
Roman coinage. I think with a lot of
work it would be possible to distinguish stylistic variation from actual differences in issues. That is essentially what was tried in the
LRBC RIC volumes but what needs revision given time and the hugely increased access to imagery.
Shawn
