Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 34-35. (2014-2015)
Articles
Roman Military Equipment from Säräfeni 33 con San Albito (Leon, ESP).16 Towards the end of the 3rd century AD17 or at the beginning of the next one18 this type of armors were removed from use. The ornamentation of these was generally achieved through the au repoussé technique (strikes on the surface) followed by engraving and piercing of the details, through stamping or pressing, more rarely engraving.19 From the point of view of the decoration, the breast plates can be grouped into two groups with one or three registers inscribed on a broader surface - encircled by an embossed band which follows the contour of the piece at a given distance from the edges.20 As the finds from Dacia (from Porolissum, Bucium, Oltenia, Potaissa) also indicate the last one was more frequent21. The repertoire of the decoration is generally represented by an image of a divinity in the middle register, by an eagle in the upper and a shield (rarely the Capricorne or the Capitoline Wolf) in the lower register.22 The preference for deities which protected the soldiers and the army prevailed, such as Mars, Minerva, Dea Virtus or Dea Roma.23 Nevertheless, for the find from Säräteni this cannot be determined because of its poor preservation. The only decorative element which is clear on this piece is the eagle of Jupiter as a symbol of the supreme deity.24 25 In the case of the plaques with a single register like the ones from Micia, Samum, Potaissa25 or Manching (GER)26 the surface is occupied by the torso of a god. The eagle does not appear but in the lower part generally a shield is represented.27 Another debated issue in specialized literature is the identification of military units which used armors with such accessories and the question whether these were used in combat or not. Based on an example from Pfünz L. Petculescu showed that such armors were worn mainly by the officers from auxiliary infantry units but the finds from 16 Aurrecoechea 2007,171-173, Fig. 1-3. 17 Petculescu 1975, 87; Van Daele 2002, 111. 18 Aurrecoechea 2007, 173. 19 Petculescu 1975, 79-80; Petculescu 1986, 154. 20 Petculescu 1975, 80. 21 Isac - Bärbulescu 2008, 217, Abb. 22, 23, 25; Isac - Bärbulescu 2009, 75-76, Fig. 22, 23, 25. 22 Petculescu 1975, 80; Petculescu 1986, 154; Van Daele 2002,110. 23 Petculescu 1975, 80; Petculescu 1986, 154. 24 Petculescu 1986, 154; Van Daele 2002, 110. 25 Isac - Bärbulescu 2008, 217-218, Abb. 24, 26; Isac - Bärbulescu 2009, 75-76, Fig. 24, 26. 26 Robinson 1975, 160, PI. 454. 27 Petculescu 1975, 80. the forts from Petronell-Carnuntum (A), Lauriacum (A), Brigetio, Aquincum (HU) and Potaissa (Cluj) demonstrate their use also by legionaries. The possibility that cavalry troops were also equipped with armors that had such breast plates cannot be excluded but there is no clear evidence in this respect.28 Given the complexity of the decoration on these breast plates it was believed for a long time that they were used only at parades of the cavalry or in the so-called hippika gymnasia. Furthermore, because of the thinness of the bronze plaque from which these were made it seems likely that they had a reduced protective role.29 However, taking into account the above presented as well as the fact that many among these were found in deposits together with other objects of diverse functions it is believed that armors equipped with such fittings were surely used in combat. Likewise, according to some the objects in question enjoyed a different status in comparison to the parade equipment used on special occasions exclusively by cavalry.30 The fragment from Säräteni was fastened on the left side of the chest. From its width a large part was preserved with the exception of the margins where the fastening holes were situated. Similar cases where the fitting was found together with the scales from lorica squamata can be mentioned at Pfünz or Maastricht (D). The find from Potaissa, where almost the entire piece was preserved has the height of 17,2 cm and the width of 9,2 cm,31 while our fragment has a width of only 8 cm preserved. The thickness is 0,7 mm similar to the ones from Dura-Europos under 1 mm32 or from Maastricht of approximately 0,5 mm.33 As previously mentioned, from the point of view of the decoration, the fragment can be included in the type with three registers, although the only register preserved is the upper one on which the eagle is represented. Analogies can be found at Potaissa,34 in Spain,35 at Orgovány (HU),36 28 Petculescu 1975, 86, with the bibliography referring to these objects. 29 Bishop - Coulston 1993, 117; Junkelmann 1996, 69; Van Daele 2002,110. 30 Petculescu 1986, 160. 31 Isac - Bärbulescu 2008, 217, Fig. 22; Isac - Bärbulescu 2009, 76, Fig. 22. 32 James 2010,120, Fig. 62. 33 Van Daele 2002, 110. 34 Isac - Bärbulescu 2008, 217, Abb. 22, 23, 25. 35 Aurrecoechea 2007, 172, Fig. 8/1; Aurrecoechea 2010, 94, Fig. 2/1. 36 Borhy 1994,148; Bishop - Coulston 2013, 139, Fig.84/1.
