How To: Dress as a Roman soldier Part Two

This ‘How To:’ series is aimed at the general reader or an individual wishing to portray a Roman legionary or auxiliary as accurately as our current knowledge allows. It is not intended to be an academic exploration of all the different permutations of Roman helmets, armour, swords and so on that have been identified and catalogued in the archaeological record. There are far more detailed books and online resources available elsewhere.

In Part One we looked at the clothing and accessories commonly worn by Roman soldiers of the 1st to 2nd century AD. In Part Two the focus shifts to body armour and helmets.

‘Caveat emptor’ (Buyer beware)

There are many online sources for reproduction historical equipment, arms and armour. Some retailers offer far superior products than others, but clearly better quality comes at a higher cost. Bespoke makers ought to be the buyer’s first recourse, if their budget permits, as these skilled artisans take pride in accurately reproducing museum quality artefacts. Body armour is definitely one area where custom-made rather than ‘off-the-shelf’ is preferable. If you are going to be encased in metal for any extended period, it needs to fit and articulate well to mitigate the effects of the armour’s weight and allow a full range of movement. Poorly fitting armour risks uncomfortable chafing at the minimum but could cause actual physical harm. Having your armour made-to-measure or at least adjusted to fit well after purchase by a competent armourer is highly recommended.

Body Armour

There are four principal types of body armour worn by the Roman military, namely the muscle cuirass (lorica musculata), mail shirts (lorica hamata), scale shirts (lorica squamata), and the iconic articulated plate armour whose Latin name is uncertain but for convenience historians call lorica segmentata (or lorica laminata). A fifth style, lorica plumata, is also included but it could be argued that this is a derivative of lorica squamata rather than a distinct type.

Lorica Musculata (Muscle cuirass)

Lorica musculata is a type of cuirass made to fit the wearer's torso and designed to mimic an idealised male human physique. It first appears in late Archaic Greece and became widespread throughout the 5th and 4th centuries BC. This type of cuirass is commonly depicted in Greek and Roman art, where it is worn by generals, emperors, and deities at times when soldiers used other types of armour. In Roman sculpture, the muscle cuirass is often highly ornamented with mythological scenes, yet archaeological finds of relatively unadorned cuirasses, together with their depiction by artists in military scenes, indicate that simpler versions were probably worn in combat.

Despite the ubiquitous ‘Hollywood’ leather versions, and consequently the popular belief that muscle cuirasses were made of leather, this is no longer thought to be the case. A moulded leather cuirass would have had to be very thick and rigid to provide any defensive qualities (Robinson, 1975, 147). Cuirasses hammered out of two sheets of metal, originally bronze and later iron, to produce separate breast and backplates offers far superior defence. When fastened together the two pieces form a high-waisted or hip length protective shell about the torso. The anatomical effect was most likely achieved by repoussé, that is being shaped or ornamented with patterns in relief by hammering or pressing on the reverse side. The two halves of the cuirass were secured on each side by two hinge-like fasteners, or a pair of rings joined by ties (Robinson, 1975, 149). Shoulder straps hinged to the upper edges of the backplate and tied down to rings on the breast as shown below left.

Robinson suggests that this cuirass type was probably worn almost exclusively by emperors and top-ranking military leaders as a symbol of Roman might and sovereignty (Robinson, 1975, 147). He and others also propose muscle cuirasses were adopted and worn by members of the Praetorian Guard for ceremonial occasions as late as the middle of the 2nd century AD. This proposition is largely based on the famous Praetorian relief in the Musee du Louvre, Paris (see above centre). Furthermore, a centurion is shown wearing muscle cuirass on the base of the column of Antoninus Pius now in the Vatican Museum. From the archaeological record the only examples of metal muscle cuirasses to have survived are Etruscan ones (see above right) dating from 5th to the 3rd century BC (Robinson, 1975, 147). These rare survivors are fundamental in revealing how this form of body armour made and fastened.

Lorica hamata (Mail armour)

Lorica hamata, a type of flexible mail armour, commonly called ‘chainmail’ or sometimes ‘ring mail’, was used by Roman soldiers from at least the 3rd century BC Republic until the Empire’s demise. The name Lorica hamata comes from the Latin hamatus (hooked) itself from hamus meaning ‘hook’ since it is made of iron rings linked, or ‘hooked’, to one another. A shirt of mail is made of thousands of metal rings, typically iron, joined so that each individual ring is linked to at least four others. The rings can be solid ‘washer’ types punched from a sheet of metal or made from wire whose open ends were either welded or rivetted together [1]. In this case, four open-ended rings are linked to a closed ring (either welded or rivetted shut) before they too are closed with rivets. Rows of additional rings are added using the same technique to produce a full shirt of mail.

Mail is an ideal protective layer against slashing cuts from bladed weapons. It is less effective against concussive blows resulting in blunt force trauma or penetrative thrusts that can split the rings open. To protect against injury, some form of under-armour, possibly known as the subarmalis, is presumed to have been worn. Whether this was of leather or layers of bonded cloth similar to a Mediæval gambeson is not known for certain. Likewise, we cannot be sure that the mail shirt was or was not attached to a protective lining. Practical experimentation does suggest that additional padding is highly beneficial for cushioning blows, offering further layers to resist cuts or piercing attacks, and to prevent rings being driven into the wearer’s body. In the archaeological examples of this form of body protection, however, the metalwork often survives but rarely does any organic material such as leather or cloth.

Roman designs clearly copied the earlier Greek style of body armour that historians call a ‘linothorax’, a modern term derived from ‘lino’ for linen and ‘thorax’ meaning chest or torso. The mail corselet protected the upper body and vital organs, while shoulder doubling gave extra protection against downward cuts and provided a means to securely fasten the shirt. If Roman mail shirts did copy earlier Greek designs and had a leather or padded cloth liner, then they may well have been opened and fastened (probably) on the left, or shield protected, side to ease putting on or taking off [2]. Although not shown in the artist rendering of a Republican Hastatus (right), the padded garment beneath mail shirts may have had pteryges (‘wings’) at the shoulders to protect the upper arm and attached below the waist to protect the groin. Whether pteryges were made of leather or stiffened linen is unknown (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 63), although the latter is entirely possible.

Modern historians believe that mail armour was invented or developed by the Iron Age people of northern Europe (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 63). Soldiers of the Roman Republic first encountered mail shirts when fighting Gallic tribes in Cisalpine Gaul, now Northern Italy. The Roman army adopted the technology for their troops naming it lorica hamata. There does not seem to be any difference between mail worn by legionary or auxiliary troops. In either case, the length of mail shirts is depicted as varying from hip-length to just above the knee.

Lorica squamata (Scale armour)

Lorica squamata was made from small sections of metal sheet resembling fish scales that were wired side-by-side to their neighbours and sewn to a fabric backing (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 64). Surviving examples of scales show variation in size and shape, and that they were made of either iron or brass. The rows of scales were overlapped and offset by half a length of one scale to maximise protection. That said, no examples of an entire set of lorica squamata has been discovered, but there have been several archaeological finds of shirt fragments and individual scales are quite commonly found even in non-military contexts. ‘No examples of scale have yet been recognised in the archaeological record from the Republican period, nor are there any representations of Roman soldiers wearing it’ (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 64). While it is not known precisely when the Romans adopted this type of armour, it seems to have remained in use for about eight centuries being most prominent in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Moreover, finds of scales in the archaeological record seem to reveal this type of armour was more widely used than the evidence from tombstones suggests.

That said, the best evidence for what lorica squamata looked like is provided by carved reliefs of contemporary soldiers. These depictions, typically on funerary stelae, include signiferes (standard bearers), aeneatores (horn players) [3], centurions, cavalry troops, and auxiliary infantry, but also regular legionaries. The reconstruction shown right follows the Greek ‘linothorax’ design complete with shoulder doubling and pteryges attached. As with lorica hamata, the shoulder doubling is secured by hinged fasteners attached at the centre of the chest. Scales were frequently tinned. In the reconstruction, tinned scales alternate with the intervening brass ones to create a checkerboard pattern; a homage to a cuirass found at Ham Hill.

Lorica plumata (‘Feathered’ armour)

Lorica plumata, also known lorica hamata squamatque, was a hybrid Roman cuirass combining mail and scales. The very small feather-like scales, called plumes, attached to oval shaped rings gave it a ‘feathered’ appearance. Presumably very time consuming to manufacture, and by extension expensive, lorica plumata is not a common find.

‘Lorica segmentata’ (Plate armour)

‘Lorica segmentata’, also called ‘lorica laminata’ (where lamina describes a sheet of metal), is the best-known type of body armour used by Roman soldiers. The terms ‘segmentata‘ or ‘laminata’ were coined by historians as the Roman name is unknown [4], but are evocative of a cuirass constructed of iron strips fashioned into circular bands articulated on internal leather straps, with copper allot fittings  (Bishop & Coulston, 2006, 95).  ‘Lorica segmentata’ was modular and consisted of four principal elements or units: one for each shoulder, and one for each side of the torso. Each of these four sections was made of overlapping curved strips of ferrous plate riveted to leather straps permitting a considerable amount of movement between neighbouring plates (Bishop, 2002, 1-2).

In films, documentaries, video games and more widely in popular culture, ‘lorica segmentata‘ has become the iconic armour of the Roman legions. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to portray all legionaries clad in this type of armour even when the period being depicted pre-dates the armour’s introduction or is after its disappearance from the archaeological record. Moreover, there is evidence that banded armour was used by other civilizations before the Romans, in particular the Parthians and possibly the Dacians, Scythians, or Sarmatians. Some sets of armour similar to the ‘lorica segmentata‘ have been found in archaeological sites located in the steppe dating to the 4th century BC (Bishop, 2002, 18).

Precisely when the Romans adopted their first ‘lorica segmentata‘ is not yet known. Over time, however, there is archaeological evidence for the design developing. From the late 1st century BC to circa the mid-40s AD the Dangstetten-Kalkriese-Vindonissa type was in use. Seemingly this was replaced from circa the mid-40s AD to the first quarter of the 2nd century AD by the Corbridge-Carnuntum derivatives. From then until at least the first quarter of the 3rd century AD, the Newstead type was adopted. It highly likely that these different armour designs overlapped each other and were in concurrent use by Roman soldiers across the Empire.

In 1994, excavation at the site of the Augustan era Varusschlacht (‘Varus battle’) of AD 9 at Kalkriese, near Osnabrück (Germany), produced a dramatic piece of evidence which conclusively proved that ‘lorica segmentata‘ had been in use in the first decade of the 1st century AD - at least 40 years earlier than had previously been thought (Bishop, 2002, 23). The Kalkriese evidence consisted of a breastplate and a number of loose fittings. The breastplate shared many characteristics with the Corbridge type cuirass introduced later by having vertical and horizontal fastening straps and a hinge to join it to its mid-collar plate, although the fittings were of a completely different form. Its leather fastening straps were riveted directly to the body of the breastplate with large, disc-headed copper-alloy rivets, whilst the hinge fitting was sub-lobate (one end having three points) and attached with four rivets. The horizontal fastening strap still retained its buckle, which was attached directly to it with a pair of rivets. Finally, the whole circumference of the plate was edged with copper-alloy piping, similar to that used on iron helmets. In common with many ‘lorica segmentata’ breastplates, it was slightly convex (Bishop, 2002, 23).

The Corbridge type of ‘lorica segmentata‘ is the most completely understood of all the variants, thanks mainly to the remains of parts of as many as twelve cuirasses preserved in the Corbridge Hoard, discovered in 1964. The designs’ defining features are ‘lobate’ hinges, decorative washers, hinged straps and buckles, and brass tie loops for leather thongs to fasten the armour plates at front and back.

The finds of Newstead-type armour so far known are almost exclusively 2nd or 3rd century in date, with the Eining find appearing to date after AD 229 and the Zugmantel pieces before AD 259/60. Assemblages from Carlisle and Carnuntum contain both forms thereby indicating an indeterminate period of overlap in use of the Corbridge and Newstead types during the first half of the 2nd century AD (Bishop, 2002, 49). This armour’s defining features are larger breast and back plates, very large lobate hinges, and turning pins and slots to fasten the front and back.

Around the middle of the 3rd century AD ‘lorica segmentata‘ seems to have fallen out of favour with the Roman army, although it did remain in use during the Late Roman Empire. Soldiers wearing ‘lorica segmentata‘ are depicted on the Arch of Constantine, a monument erected in AD 315, but it is argued that these figures were repurposed from an earlier monument commissioned by Marcus Aurelius and incorporated into Constantine’s Arch.

The Roman army is famously divided into legionaries who held full citizenship and non-citizen auxiliary soldiers who were recruited from the Provinces. On monuments such as Trajan’s Column in Rome, auxilia are generally shown wearing mail shirts and carrying oval shields in contrast to legionarii who wear ‘lorica segmentata‘ and carry the curved rectangular shield. Consequently for a long time it has been supposed that ‘lorica segmentata‘ was exclusively worn by legionaries and men of the Praetorian Guard. Most historians today consider Trajan's Column to be a highly stylized and somewhat inaccurate portrayal of Roman soldiers. The archaeological record has provided evidence for different armour types, but our knowledge still retains gaps. The discovery of ‘lorica segmentata‘ pieces where auxiliary soldiers were stationed may be evidence that they also wore plate armour, but it is entirely possible that these finds were a consequence of small detachments of legionaries being present. Interestingly, on the Adamclisi Tropaeum [5], ‘lorica segmentata‘ makes no appearance with both legionaries and auxiliaries depicted wearing lorica hamata and lorica squamata.

Imperial Period Helmets

‘Munitions grade’, in the context of historical arms and armour, refers to mass-produced equipment suitable for storing in an armoury as opposed to items privately purchased by an individual. In a Roman context, such equipment might include helmets, body armour and weapons.

Munitions grade arms and armour are typically thought of as lower quality, but this was not always the case. From examples in the archaeological record, the actual quality of munitions grade equipment could vary widely but most probably in accordance with the budget available and a willingness to spend money. In a wealthy state such as the Roman Empire there was nothing to prevent the Roman army stocking its stores with extremely high-quality kit. There are two caveats, however. The first is that a piece of armour can be well made without being custom made. In other words, just because something is ‘off the rack’ does not mean shortcuts were taken in other areas of its construction. The second is that the ‘munitions grade’ armour of a wealthy state that spent lavishly on its munitions could easily be superior to those pieces of armour privately commissioned by someone with far fewer resources.

Roman helmets, known as galea or cassis, varied greatly in form as no two were exactly identical. There are, however, broad categories assigned by historians to the surviving examples. Categorisation in the UK has tended to follow the seminal 1975 work by H Russel Robinson, a curator in the Royal Armouries, who produced a typology sub-divided into models. In Robinson’s typology you may discover references to a ‘Coolus type C’ or an ‘Imperial Gallic type H’ helmet. In Europe, the trend has been to name objects after their find site. An example of the former was recovered from Coolus in France, hence the name, and an example of the latter was found in Augsburg, Germany. Regardless of the designation adopted, any of the helmet types described below would be appropriate for someone wishing to recreate the look of a Roman soldier of the 1st century AD.

The ‘Coolus’ style helmets  The ‘Montefortino’ helmet depicted worn by the Hastatus in the artwork above was one of the earliest types used in the armies of the Roman Republic up to the 1st century BC. Made of bronze or copper-alloy (brass) this cone-shaped helmet had a small neck guard and a finial at its apex drilled to accept a crest secured by a pin. By the mid-1st century AD, the neck guard on these helmets had become enlarged. From the late 1st century BC to the late 2nd century AD ‘Montefortino’ style helmets (galea) were replaced by designs influenced by the northern Gallic tribes and identified today as ‘Coolus’. They adopted a ‘standard’ design featuring a more rounded dome protecting the cranium, a neck guard, a sturdy frontal peak for additional impact protection and decoration, and hinged cheek guards. The earliest examples had a small neck guard, no frontal peaks or brow guards, and no provision for a crest. Over time neck guards grew progressively larger, frontal peaks or brow guards were fitted, and pointed finials added for the attachment of a crest (see above right). The finials typically had a longitudinal slot, with a lateral hole passing through it, into which a flat tang attached to a crest can be inserted and secured with a pin through the finial and tang. Some examples have a copper-alloy tube attached to each side presumably for the insertion of decorative feathers or something similar.

Imperial Gallic style helmets  As the term ‘Gallic’ suggests these Roman helmets shared features with those identifiable with tribal examples from Gaul. The oval bowl was decorated with embossed, corrugated ‘eyebrows’ that also functioned to reinforce the helmet’s frontal aspect. Often these iron helmets (brass versions are also known) were decorated with circular copper-alloy ‘roundels’ similar to those find on Corbridge type lorica segmentata. As shown below neck guards vary from the horizontal to those steeply angled downward on the Imperial Gallic H type shown below right.

A small square plate, raised in the middle to form a square-section tube, were rivetted to the tops of helmets. Into this tube the horizontal foot of a U-shaped bracket can be slotted. The soldier’s helmet crest (Latin: crista), when worn, was supported centrally by this bracket while being secured at each end of its crest box with laces tied to rings or hooks fitted at the front and back of the helmet bowl. Along with a crest, some Imperial Gallic helmets had brass ‘feather’ tubes fitted at each side.

Imperial Italic style helmets  Very similar in design to the Gallic types, Imperial Italic helmets lack the embossed ‘eyebrows’ and decorated rivet roundels. As shown right, some were highly decorated with images of, for example, eagles and stylised temples. Brass edging was fitted to some but not all Imperial Italic helmets and the reinforcing brow guards were generally an L-section rather than solid pieces of metal. Crest fittings on top of the bowl were round with a slot into which a ‘turn and twist’ crest bracket could be fitted. The U-shaped bracket was similar to the Gallic types and crests were secured in the manner previously described.

References: 

Bishop, M.C., (2002), ‘Lorica Segmentata Volume I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour’, JRMES Monograph 1, Great Britain: The Armatvra Press.

Bishop, M.C. & Coulston, J.C.N., (2006), ‘Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome’, second edition, Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Robinson, H.R., (1975), ‘The Armour of Imperial Rome’, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Endnotes:

1. Cheaper mail shirts available to buy often use rings whose ends are simply closed together. This is a much weaker construction where the rings can be pulled open by use, or more easily split apart by thrusting weapons.

2. Most re-enactment mail shirts are simply pulled over the head as one might wear a sweater or similar garment.

3. A variety of instruments were used by aeneatores. Aeneatores who blew a buccina (a C-shaped horn made of bronze or silver or animal horn) were known as bucinatores; those who blew a cornu (a G-shaped horn made of brass) were known as cornicines; those who blew a tuba (a straight bronze horn with a slight flare at the end) were known as tubicens. Unlike bucinatores, cornicens and tubicens mostly performed uncomplicated tactical signalling on the battlefield, and therefore were not accorded special status in the military unit.

4. Since lorica hamata and lorica squamata are genuine Latin terms that were in ancient use, the use of the early modern formulation of ‘lorica segmentata’ in quotation marks is intended to mark the term’s lack of ancient authenticity. An alternative approach might be to write of lorica segmentata and marking its difference by not italicising it.

5. The Tropaeum Traiani is a monument in Roman Civitas Tropaensium (site of modern Adamklisi, Romania) in what was then the province of Moesia Inferior. It was built in AD 109 to commemorate the Emperor Trajan's victory over the Dacians, in the winter of AD 101-102, in the Battle of Adamklisi. Some experts are of the opinion that the Adamklisi monument is a more accurate portrayal Roman soldiers in the field and in combat.

On This Day: Tutankhamun’s tomb unsealed

February 16th, 1923: One hundred years ago today Egyptologist Howard Carter unseals Tutankhamun’s tomb.

Despite the builders’ best efforts most of the tombs in the Valley of the Kings were robbed of their treasures. The only one to remain untouched was that of boy king Tutankhamun, the seemingly unremarkable 11th Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty, who was made famous by the discovery of his intact tomb (KV 62) by the British archaeologist Howard Carter in 1922.

Who found the tomb?  There is a very interesting photograph, one of hundreds taken at the time, of an Egyptian boy aged between 9 and 12 and wearing a plain white linen jalabeya (right). Around his neck is a lavish and spectacular pectoral necklace featuring scarab beetles carved from lapis lazuli. Why would such an important piece of jewellery have been given to this boy to model? The answer, omitted from Carter’s official dig account may be that the boy, Hussein Abdel Rassul, had discovered Tutankhamun’s tomb.

Young Hussein was employed by Carter as a water boy, responsible for bringing water by donkey from the Nile to the dig site in the Valley of the Kings. The water jars had pointed bases so shallow holes had to be dug in the ground to stop them toppling over. It was while digging such a hole, on the early morning of November 4th, 1922, that the boy, revealed a stone step in the floor of the valley. Over the next two days clearance revealed Hussein’s discovery to be the top of a flight of descending steps cut into the bedrock that ended at a rubble wall blocking further access.

Telegram  This was the moment for which Carter and his aristocratic patron, Lord Carnarvon, had been working toward for 15 long years in the heat and dust. Carter immediately sent a telegram to Carnarvon, who was 2,500 miles away in Highclere Castle (‘Downton Abbey’) his stately home in Berkshire in the South of England.

‘At last have made wonderful discovery in valley. A magnificent tomb with seals intact. Re-covered same for your arrival. Congratulations.’

When Carnarvon arrived in Luxor on November 23rd, he and Carter looked on anxiously as the rubble wall was cleared revealing a plastered doorway. The doorway was stamped with indistinct cartouches (oval seals with hieroglyphic writing). As Carter wrote:

‘On the lower part, the seal impressions were much clearer, and we were able to make out on several of them the name of Tut-ankh-amun.’

In due course the blocked doorway was dismantled only to reveal a sloping tunnel filled from floor to ceiling with limestone chippings. As workmen struggled in the confined space to clear the tunnel, they encountered a second doorway likewise covered with seals naming Tutankhamun.

The tomb unsealed  At four o’clock on the afternoon of November 26th, 1922, with Lord Carnarvon, his daughter Lady Evelyn Herbert, and others in attendance, Carter made a ‘tiny breach in the top left-hand corner’ of the doorway using a chisel his grandmother had given him for his 17th birthday. Carter peered in by the light of a candle and saw that many of the gold and ebony treasures were still in place. He did not yet know whether it was ‘a tomb or merely a cache’, but he did see a promising sealed doorway between two sentinel statues. Lord Carnarvon asked, ‘Can you see anything?’ Carter replied with the famous words: ‘Yes, wonderful things.’ Carter had discovered the antechamber to a forgotten tomb.

Treasures  The next several months were spent cataloguing the contents of the antechamber so, it was not until February 16th, 1923 that Carter broke the seal on the doorway to the actual tomb. Inside he found a burial chamber, and Carter got his first glimpse of the sarcophagus of Tutankhamun. The tomb was considered the best preserved and most intact pharaonic tomb ever found in the Valley of the Kings. It was also the last tomb in the valley to be found.

Tutankhamun‘s burial chamber contained weapons, furniture, jewellery and model boats, as well as the king’s famous coffins and mask. Many of these items were made of solid gold or were richly decorated with gold leaf. The king was buried with his two still-born daughters and a lock of his grandmother’s hair.

Carter’s painstaking cataloguing of the thousands of objects in the tomb continued until 1932, most being moved to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.

Tutankhamun’s life (and death)

Tutankhamun (c. 1341 BC to 1323 BC), sometimes referred to as ‘King Tut’, was an Egyptian pharaoh and the last of his royal family to rule during the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty during the New Kingdom of Egyptian history. His father is believed to be the pharaoh Akhenaten commonly known as the 'heretic king' because he replaced the traditional cult of the god 'Amun' with the solar deity 'Aten' to assert his authority as pharaoh in a new way.

Parents  Originally known as Tutankhaten, the prince’s parentage remains uncertain. An inscription from Hermopolis refers to ‘Tutankhuaten’ as a ‘king's son’ in a style reminiscent of how Akhenaten’s daughters were also described. Medical analysis of Tutankhaten’s remains have revealed he shares very close physical characteristics with the mummy discovered in tomb KV 55 in the Valley of the Kings. Some scholars identify these remains as those of Smenkhkare, who seems to have been coregent with Akhenaten in the final years of his reign, while others have suggested the mummy may be Akhenaten himself. His mother is his father's sister as identified through DNA testing of an unknown mummy referred to as ‘The Younger Lady’ found in KV 35.

It is widely accepted that Tutankhamun ascended to the throne in 1332 BC [1] at the age of eight or nine following the death of Akhenaten’s coregent, Smenkhkare. Shortly after his coronation, Tutankhamun married his paternal half-sister Ankhesenpaaton, Akhenaten and Nefertiti’s third daughter and (probably) the eldest surviving princess of the royal family. During their marriage the couple lost two daughters, one at 5 to 6 months of pregnancy and the other shortly after birth at full-term.

Restoration  According to the most important document of Tutankhamun's reign, the Restoration Stele, his father's supposed reforms had left the country in a bad state. The traditional gods, seeing their temples in ruins and their cults abolished, had abandoned Egypt to chaos so, in his third year as king, Tutankhamun reversed several changes made during his father's reign. His administration began restoring old monuments damaged during the previous Amarna period and restored the old religion endowing the priestly orders of two important cults. Tutankhamun reburied his father's remains in the Valley of the Kings and relocated the capital from Akhetaten back to Thebes, the capital of the ancient Egyptian empire at its heyday. He changed his name from Tutankhaten - 'living image of Aten’ [the sun god] - to Tutankhamun, in honour of Amun. His queen, Ankhesenpaaten also changed the name on her throne to read Ankhesenamun. A temple dedicated to Amun was built at Karnak in Thebes as part of this restoration.

Discovery  The discovery of Tutankhamun's mummy revealed that he was about 19 when he died. There are no surviving records of Tutankhamun's final days. What caused his death has been the subject of considerable debate. Major studies have been conducted to establish the cause, but although some believe Tutankhamun was assassinated, the consensus is that his death was accidental possibly resulting from an injury received while hunting. We do know from analysis of his mummy that Tutankhamun was physically disabled with a deformity of his left foot along with bone necrosis that required the use of a cane, several of which were found in his tomb. He had other health issues including scoliosis and had contracted several strains of malaria.

Tutankhamun was buried in a tomb that was unusually small considering his status. This may be good evidence that his death may have occurred unexpectedly and before the completion of a grander royal tomb. It is thus thought his mummy was buried in a tomb intended for someone else. Regardless, the tomb was robbed at least twice in antiquity but based on the items taken (including perishable oils and perfumes) and the evidence of restoration of the tomb after the intrusions, it seems clear that these robberies took place within several months (at most) of the initial burial.

Eventually, the location of the tomb was lost because it had come to be buried by limestone chippings from later tombs, either dumped there or washed there by floods. In the years that followed, some huts for workers were built over the tomb entrance, clearly without anyone knowing what lay beneath. When at the end of the 20th Dynasty the Valley of the Kings burial sites were systematically dismantled, Tutankhamun's tomb was overlooked, presumably because knowledge of it had been lost, and his name may have been forgotten. He lay undisturbed for 3,245 years until in 1922 a water boy made an unexpected discovery.

‘Pharaoh’s Curse!’

We know the ancient Egyptians believed in magic and the use of spells. We also now know the ancient Egyptians, especially pharaohs, were desperate to preserve their bodies and their souls for the afterlife. For a pharaoh buried with all that tempting treasure, they would ha  rdly want their tombs raided and robbed, risking damage or destruction to their mummy. In some tombs, therefore, curses have been found - spells believed by some to be cast upon any person who disturbs the mummy of an ancient Egyptian, especially a pharaoh. One such curse reads:

‘Cursed be those who disturb the rest of a Pharaoh. They that shall break the seal of this tomb shall meet death by a disease that no doctor can diagnose.’

The ‘curse of the pharaohs’, which seemingly does not differentiate between thieves and archaeologists, is alleged to cause bad luck, illness or death. For many years, rumours of a ‘curse’ (probably fuelled by newspapers seeking sales at the time of Carter’s discovery) persisted. Stories emphasized the early demise of some of those who had entered the tomb. Those deaths popularly, but in all cases tenuously, attributed to Tutankhamun's ‘curse’ include:

• The first of the mysterious deaths was that of Lord Carnarvon, patron and financial backer of the excavation team who was present at the tomb's opening. Pictured on the left with Howard Carter, Lord Carnarvon had been bitten by a mosquito while in Egypt. The bite became infected when he accidentally cut it while shaving resulting in the sepsis (blood poisoning) that killed him. Two weeks before Carnarvon died, Marie Corelli wrote an imaginative letter that was published in the New York World magazine in which she quoted an obscure book that confidently asserted that ‘dire punishment’ would follow any intrusion into a sealed tomb. A media frenzy followed, with reports that a curse had been found in the King's tomb, though this was untrue. Lord Carnarvon died on April 5th, 1923 some four months and seven days after the opening of the tomb.

• George Jay Gould I, a visitor to the tomb, died in the French Riviera on May 16th, 1923 after he developed a fever following his visit.

• Prince Ali Kamel Fahmy Bey of Egypt died July 10th, 1923, but he was shot dead by his wife.

• Colonel The Hon. Aubrey Herbert MP, Lord Carnarvon's half-brother, became nearly blind and died on September 26th, 1923 from blood poisoning related to a dental procedure intended to restore his eyesight.

• Sir Archibald Douglas-Reid, a radiologist who x-rayed Tutankhamun's mummy, died on January 15th, 1924 from a mysterious illness.

• Sir Lee Stack, Governor-General of Sudan, died on November 19th, 1924 when assassinated while driving through Cairo.

• C. Mace, a member of Carter's excavation team, died in 1928 from arsenic poisoning.

• The Hon. Mervyn Herbert, Lord Carnarvon's other half-brother and the aforementioned Aubrey Herbert's full brother, died on May 26th, 1929 reportedly from ‘malarial pneumonia’.

• Captain The Hon. Richard Bethell, Carter's personal secretary, died on November 15th, 1929 after being found eating poison in his bed.

• Richard Luttrell Pilkington Bethell, 3rd Baron Westbury, father of the above, died on February 20th, 1930 when he supposedly threw himself off his seventh-floor apartment.

• Howard Carter, who had opened the burial chamber on February 16th, 1923, died well over a decade later on March 2nd, 1939. Despite no evidence whatsoever, some still attribute his death to the ‘curse’.

Endnotes:

1. Ruled c. 1332 BC to 1323 BC in the conventional chronology.

Dispelling Some Myths: Roman Cheshire cheese

The BBC’s Bargain Hunt has struck again. On this occasion the claim was made that Cheshire cheese was made by the Romans. That was news to us who for long enough have understood that we do not have evidence for specific cheeses from the Roman Iron Age. In fact we are only aware of one ‘recipe’, such that it is, described in a poem called ‘Moretum’ where a farmer makes a garlic infused cheese. As we have said before, we really love the show but whoever does the research for their historical interest pieces needs to check their facts before viewers risk being misled by incorrect information, uncorroborated claims, and dodgy history. So, in keeping with our ‘Dispelling Some Myths’ series we set about trying to discover where this link between the Romans and Cheshire cheese originated. A web search quickly revealed that the connection appears on several cheese related websites from which the Bargain Hunt researchers probably got the idea. We have focused on just two examples with the aim of dissecting the claims to determine or not their validity and dispel any myths.

One possible ‘patient zero’ might be the ‘Academy of Cheese’ website. It has a fledgling online record of heritage cheeses that the authors hope ‘will ultimately incorporate historic photographs, documentation and audio-visual files of the people, places and equipment that have impacted the development of the UK’s most notable cheeses over the decades.’ With this in mind the entry for Cheshire cheese states:

‘One of the oldest cheese produced in the United Kingdom, Cheshire cheese has seen its popularity grow over the centuries. From when it was first produced in Roman Chester, Cheshire varieties found success throughout the North West as well as London.’

Sadly, as is so often the case, no evidence is presented to back up the connection between cheese-making, Chester and the Romans. Regardless, as the history of each heritage cheese on the Academy of Cheese website was very much ‘a work in progress’ we looked for another possible source. Quite quickly a similar claim was found being made by The Gourmet Cheese Detective as shown right, which helpfully adds a little more information. According to the website’s author(s), Cheshire cheese is ‘the oldest cheese made in Britain’ which is a bit of a stretch given that although we have evidence for cheese-making from the Neolithic period onward, we do not know what types of cheese people were making - fresh or matured, hard or soft. Perhaps the subtitle should read ‘the oldest named cheese made in Britain’ as many other sources maintain (see below, for example, the website entry by Nantwich Museum).

Pedantry aside, our interest was piqued by The Gourmet Cheese Detective’s claim that Cheshire cheese ‘was already manufactured when Caesar conquered Britain’ because there are several reasons to be sceptical of this assertion. Before we dissect the text, one key observation to note is that no sources or references are provided for any online claims for Roman origin stories which makes it much harder to verify such assertions. As far as The Gourmet Cheese Detective entry is concerned, our first question was to which Caesar are they referring?

Ave Caesar!  One might assume it is an oblique reference to the most well-known Roman with links to Britain, Gaius Julius Caesar. If so, then this is a major mistake since, quite simply, he did not ‘conquer’ these isles. During his own account of his conquest of Gaul, Caesar tells us that, having subdued two Gallic tribes, in the late summer of 55 BC he crossed into Britain because the Britons had aided one of his enemies the previous year (possibly the Veneti of Brittany). However his knowledge of Britain was poor and although he gained a beachhead on the coast, he could not advance further. According to his own account, Commentāriī dē Bellō Gallicō (Commentaries on the Gallic War), he did raid out from his beachhead and destroyed some villages before returning to Gaul for the winter. The following year, 54 BC, Caesar returned better prepared and with a larger force, and apparently achieved more. His troops advanced inland and established a few alliances before poor harvests led to a widespread revolt in Gaul that forced Caesar to leave an unconquered Britain. He never returned. So, if not Gaius Julius Caesar, then who?

The Roman conquest of Britain is widely accepted as beginning in AD 43 during the reign of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, more commonly known as the Emperor Claudius. It is significant that, by this time, his formal name contained the honorific titles ‘Caesar’ and ‘Augustus’ used by all Roman emperors. In this instance Claudius adopted the name ‘Caesar’ as a cognomen (surname) as it still carried great weight with the populace in remembrance of the divine Julius. He also adopted the name ‘Augustus’ as the two previous emperors had done at their accessions [1]. What this means is that ‘Caesar’ became synonymous and used interchangeably with the title Imperator (‘emperor’) [2]. Yet there’s still a problem. Claudius died in AD 54 by which time Chester was not yet a Roman town. In fact, a settlement may not have existed at all. The precise date of the first occupation by the Roman army of the site that would eventually become Chester remains uncertain. Contact with Romans presumably increased greatly after Claudius' invasion in AD 43. Moreover, at his death twelve years later, elements of the Roman army had probably arrived in the area as part of their campaigns against the tribes of Ordovices and Deceangli in central and northern Wales and the Brigantes north and east of Cheshire.

The ‘walled city’  Returning to The Gourmet Cheese Detective, the website entry also states there is a ‘tradition’ that ‘the Romans built the walled city of Chester to control the district where the precious cheese was made’. The first part, that the Romans established the site that would become the walled city of Chester, can be substantiated historically and archaeologically. As to the ‘precious cheese’ claim, we will return to that shortly.

In AD 71 the new Roman governor of Britannia, Quintus Petillius Cerialis [3], arrived in the province accompanied by Legio II Adiutrix [4]. This legion founded what would become a substantial fortress named Deva Victrix in the land of the Cornovii tribe sometime around AD 74 or AD 75. Said fortress was almost certainly intended to dominate and control the surrounding territory, but its purpose was also to support Roman expansion northward and westward [5]. The fortress was named Deva possibly after the goddess of the river Dee or directly from the local British name for the river. The 'victrix' part of the name, meaning ‘victorious’, was taken from the title of the Legio XX Valeria Victrix who were based at Deva from about AD 90.

In keeping with standard Roman army practices, the fortress was initially defended by an earth rampart surmounted by a wooden palisade and surrounded by a ditch with a sharp V-shaped profile. When the fortress was occupied by Legio XX Valeria Victrix, a programme of rebuilding began that included improvements to the fortress’ defensive walls. Starting in about AD 100 the earthen rampart and wooden palisade were reconstructed using locally quarried sandstone. However, it seems the rebuilding of the walls was abandoned in the early part of the 2nd century, perhaps with the walls incomplete, and was not finished until over 100 years later. Regardless, the stone walls were maintained throughout the Roman occupation, with major repairs undertaken later in the 4th century. We also know that a civilian settlement (canabae legionis) grew around the fortress, probably starting as a group of traders and their families who were profiting from trade with the army and its soldiers. It is from these early beginnings that today’s city of Chester [6] would grow, but at no point is there any suggestion that any ‘precious cheese’ needed the army’s protection; the fortress’ walls were simply a military expedient. In other words, the Roman army did not build the ‘walled city of Chester’, but the walls of their original fortress would, much later after the legions had left, be retained and go on to define part of the developing town of Chester. So, we do have evidence that the Romans did indeed build a fortress with defensive walls according to their army’s normal practice. Such a fortress would indeed have been a base of operations ‘to control the district’, as The Gourmet Cheese Detective writes, but what about the idea that this was ‘where the precious cheese was made’? What evidence is there that, specifically, ‘Cheshire’ cheese was first made in or around Chester in the Roman Iron Age?

Cheese history  Cheese-making has a long history but currently there is no conclusive evidence for where the practice originated. It may possibly have been Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, or the Sahara [7]. Likewise, precisely when humans first began cheese-making is not known, although archaeology has provided some of the best dating evidence for its origin, which we included in ‘A Brief History of Foods: Cheese’. From the archaeological record we can be confident that our prehistoric ancestors made cheese, but we cannot know with any degree of certainty what cheeses they made. It is presumed that the earliest cheeses were most likely soft versions recognisably similar to cottage cheese. We also know that ancient Greeks and Romans brined cheese, so a form of feta also might be assumed.

Etymology  ‘Cheese was made throughout western and central Europe long before the Roman Empire; but we can know little about it’ (Dalby, 2009, 44). However, for those modern countries that were once part of the Empire - Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria and Italy - their history of cheese-making probably began with the Romans. The general names for cheese in the Romance languages are derived from Latin caseus (e.g. queijo, queso, cacio, cas, etc.) or from a later Latin word forma meaning a cheese mould and by extension any cheese shaped in such a mould (fourme, fromage, formagio) (Dalby, 2009, 45). In the northern reaches of the Empire the name for cheese was also influenced by Latin caseus (Irish cāise, Welsh caws, English cheese, Dutch kaas, German Kāse). Of note to the current discourse is that, according to Dalby, our Roman sources confirm these countries were producing cheese before and during the Roman Iron Age. What the contemporary sources do not record are any cheeses that we can confidently identify as surviving over the centuries. There are some vague parallels (soft ‘cottage-like’ cheese, feta-style or harder parmesan-like versions), but nothing definitive. Unfortunately, the recorded history of cheese does not begin until the Middle Ages (Dalby, 2009, 45), which means we cannot prove the Romans were at all influential in either developing or indeed first making a type of cheese in the province of Britannia that is now known as ‘Cheshire’.

Oldest named cheese  Despite all that has been written so far, Cheshire cheese remains one of the oldest recorded named cheeses in British history. It is first mentioned, along with a Shropshire cheese, by Thomas Muffet in Health's Improvement c. 1580. Furthermore, according to the ‘History Of Cheshire Cheese’ by the British Cheese Board, Cheshire cheese was first recorded in William Camden's Britannia of 1586 [8] which stated it was ‘more agreeable and better relished than those of other parts of the kingdom’. The 1637 edition refers to cheese-making in Cheshire: ‘...the grasse and fodder there is of that goodness and vertue that the cheeses bee made heere in great number of a most pleasing and delicate taste, such as all England againe affordeth not the like; no, though the best dairy women otherwise and skilfullest in cheesemaking be had from hence.’ Praise indeed.

Cheshire became the most popular type of cheese on the market in the late 18th century. In 1758 the Royal Navy ordered ships be stocked with Cheshire and Gloucester cheeses to replace the thin, hard, durable, but practically inedible, Suffolk Cheese it had up to then issued (Miggins, 2002). Until the late 19th century, the different varieties of Cheshire cheeses were aged to a sufficient level of hardness to withstand the rigours of transport (by horse and cart, and later by boat) to London for sale. However, a younger, fresher, crumbly cheese, similar to that of today, which required shorter maturation began to gain popularity towards the end of the 19th century, particularly in the industrial areas in the North and the Midlands. It was a cheaper cheese to make as it required less storage.

‘First produced in Roman Chester’  All of the available evidence strongly argues against the notion that the Romans were the first to produce what is now known as Cheshire cheese whether in Chester or not. In summary, here is why.

‘First produced…’ We have proof for cheese-making from the Neolithic period onward, but we can only presume this was the case in Britain without stronger supporting evidence. We cannot identify particular types of cheese such as Cheshire, however. More importantly, the Gourmet Cheese Detective claims Cheshire cheese ‘was already produced when Caesar conquered Britain’ and thus it could not be ‘first produced in Roman Chester’. As for ‘…in Roman Chester’, well that is true-ish. Over centuries the Roman army’s fortress of Deva Victrix would eventually become the modern city of Chester. The very name of the city is derived from Latin castrum meaning a military camp or fort [6]. Thus, we can confidently connect the Romans to Chester, and now we think we see how this myth has been crafted. Cheshire is a particular variety of cheese that has been produced for decades in the county of the same name. Cheshire’s county town is Chester and Chester would not have existed had it not been for the Romans who, as we are now aware, like many other people since the Neolithic period made and ate cheese. Quod erat demonstrandum [9]: the Romans first made Cheshire cheese.

Hopefully we have shown how this connection is a fallacy - a myth to be dispelled, if you will. Most importantly, we must stress that no offence is intended to either the popular BBC television programme or the websites critiqued above. Rather we hope that by challenging the quoted statements regarding Cheshire cheese’s origin, we have revealed some of the history that you, the reader, were perhaps unaware. And none of this should detract from the fact that Cheshire cheese is a tasty addition to any cheeseboard.

References:

Academy of Cheese, (2022), ‘Cheshire: History’, Available online: https://academyofcheese.org/heritage/cheshire/ (accessed January 1st, 2023).

BBC (2005), Timewatch: ‘Britain's Lost Colosseum’, first broadcast May 20th, 2005.

British Cheese Board (2016), ‘History Of Cheshire Cheese’, Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20160621165019/http://www.britishcheese.com/cheshire/history_of_cheshire_cheese-14 (accessed January 31st, 2023).

Caesar, G.J, Commentāriī dē Bellō Gallicō (Commentaries on the Gallic War), Book IV, Chapter 33, Loeb Classical Library (1917), Available online from LacusCurtius.

Dalby, A. (2009), ‘Cheese: A Global History’, London: Reaktion Books.

Dalby, A. (2003), ‘Food in the Ancient World from A to Z’, London: Routledge.

The Gourmet Cheese Detective, (2011-2023), ‘Cheshire Cheese’, Available online: https://www.gourmetcheesedetective.com/cheshire-cheese.html (accessed January 1st, 2023).

Miggins, J. (2002), ‘Nelson and His Navy - Cheese and the Navy’, The Historical Maritime Society, Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20100413065348/http://www.hms.org.uk/nelsonsnavycheese.htm (accessed January 31st, 2023).

Nantwich Museum, (2023), ‘Cheshire Cheese’, Available online: https://nantwichmuseum.org.uk/permanent-exhibitions/cheshire-cheese/ (accessed January 1st, 2023).

Publius Cornelius Tacitus, (AD 98), De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae (‘On the life and character of Julius Agricola’), 24 (trans here).

Endnotes:

1. Augustus (plural Augusti), meaning ‘majestic’, ‘great’ or ‘venerable’. was an ancient Roman title given as both name and title to Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (often referred to simply as Augustus), Rome's first Emperor. On his death, it became an official title of his successor, and was so used by Roman emperors thereafter.

2. The Latin word imperator derives from the stem of the verb imperare, meaning 'to order, to command'. During the Roman Republic it was first used as a title roughly equivalent to ‘commander’ conferred on a victorious general. Later it became a part of the titles adopted by the Roman Emperors as part of their cognomen. The English word ‘emperor’ derives from imperator via Old French: Empereür.

3. In AD 71, Quintus Petillius Cerialis Caesius Rufus (c. AD 30 - after AD 83), otherwise known as Quintus Petillius Cerialis, was appointed governor of Roman Britain and bought Legio II Adiutrix with him to the province.

4. Legio II Adiutrix (‘Second Legion, the Rescuer’), was founded in AD 70 by Emperor Vespasian (r. AD 69 to AD 79). It was originally composed of Roman navy marines of the classis Ravennatis (the ‘Roman fleet based at Ravenna).

5. Deva Victirx was 20% larger than the fortresses of Eboracum (York) - later capital of Britannia Inferior - and Isca Augusta (Caerleon). Its size and a unique elliptical building have fuelled speculation that Deva Victrix may have been the governor (Legatus Augusti pro praetore) Gnaeus Julius Agricola's administrative headquarters - in effect the provincial capital of Britannia (BBC, 2005). Moreover, the presence of Deva Victrix‘s port on the river Dee which grants access to the Irish Sea suggests, as Tacitus records in De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae (‘On the life and character of Julius Agricola’), that the Governor had plans to conquer Ireland (Hibernia).

6. The English place-name Chester, and the suffixes -chester, -caster and -cester (old -ceaster), are commonly indications that the place is the site of a Roman castrum, meaning a military camp or fort (cf. Welsh caer), or the site of a pre-historic ‘fort’.

7. Wikipedia, History of cheese, retrieved August 10th, 2020.

8. William Camden was an English antiquarian, historian, topographer, herald and author of Britannia, the first chorographical survey of the islands of Great Britain and Ireland. Originally published in Latin in 1586 the work was subsequently enlarged and revised before being translated into English by P Holland in 1616.

9. Quod erat demonstrandum or QED from Latin meaning ‘what was to be demonstrated’ is used to indicate that a mathematical proof or philosophical argument is complete. But you knew that, right?

On This Day: Burnt for his Beliefs

February 4th, 1555: John Rogers becomes the first Protestant martyr to be burnt at the stake in Queen Mary I’s persecutions. Formerly an orthodox Catholic priest, Rogers had converted to Protestantism after an encounter in Antwerp with William Tyndale.

Rogers was born c. AD 1500 in Aston, Staffordshire. Having graduated from the University of Cambridge in 1526, six year later (1532) he was made rector of Holy Trinity, Queenhithe, London. In 1534 Rogers became a chaplain to English merchants in Antwerp. There the English scholar William Tyndale influenced him to forsake Roman Catholicism for Protestantism.

After Tyndale was betrayed and executed in 1536, Rogers combined Tyndale’s incomplete translation of the Old Testament with the remaining books that had already been translated by another English scholar, Miles Coverdale. To the Old Testament, now in English, Rogers added Tyndale’s New Testament (1526). This version of the complete Bible, which also included Coverdale’s translation of the Apocrypha, was first printed in Antwerp in 1537 by one Thomas Matthew; a pseudonym probably intended to protect Rogers from meeting Tyndale’s fate. Shortly thereafter Rogers’ edition of ‘The English Bible’ was being sold in England.

He returned to England in 1547 during the reign of the Protestant Edward VI. On the accession of Edward’s Catholic half-sister Mary in 1553 Rogers preached an anti-Catholic sermon warning against ‘pestilent Popery, idolatry, and superstition’ and was immediately placed under house arrest. In January 1554 the Bishop of London sent him to Newgate, where he was imprisoned for a year. With ten other prisoners Rogers was brought before a council in Southwark in January 1555 for examination, and within a week he was sentenced to death by burning for heresy.

A plea to see his wife one last time was denied and the sentence was carried out on February 4th. On the day of his public execution by burning, Rogers was led through streets lined with onlookers to where, outside the entrance to St Bartholomew’s Church, Smithfield, he was given a final chance to recant. On his refusal, the faggots were lit and as the flames reached his shoulders, he was seen to motion as if washing his hands in water. His bravery moved, and inspired, many.

Although Rogers had little to do with the actual translation, he supplied notes and valuable prefaces that constitute the first English commentary on the Bible. His work formed the basis of the Great Bible (1539), from which came the Bishops’ Bible (1568) and eventually the Authorized, or King James, Version (1611).

Reference:

Watkins, J., (2005), ‘Protestant martyr is burned’, BBC History Magazine Volume 6, Number 2, p. 11.