Brows of pseudo corinthian origin?

[Paullus Scipio]

After reading your last post, it was clear to me that your views, as on previous occasions, tend toward 'narrow views' and seemingly not open to persuasion, and therefore no point in responding ( your declaration that the debate is over). However, I’ve changed my mind because this topic does give a good example of why we should consider ALL our sources, archaeology, iconography and literature in trying to understand matters such as this one, and this may be of use to the general reader of our forum. (though perhaps only you and I are still reading this thread ! :wink: )

The first reason is that if we exclude any of them, or seek to rely on only one aspect, we are often simply left with so little evidence as to not be meaningful. A holistic approach is essential. For a fuller explanation of some of the reasons why, I recommend pp.20- 47 of Bishop and Coulston’s “Roman Military Equipment” Batsford, London 1993 ISBN 0 7134 6637 5.

You seem to believe that archaeological evidence is somehow more reliable than iconographic. Every student of this subject knows the problems associated with iconography, but I am surprised that you seem to think archaeology has any fewer problems, and I’ll illustrate some of the problems through the subject of what were previously called ‘Italo-Corinthian’ or ‘Etrusco-Corinthian’ helmets, but which have now come to be called ‘Apulo-Corinthian’. ( see next post)

Christian wrote:
O.K., now having read Paddock´s thesis, I´d like to comment on what you wrote.

Unfortunately, you chose to “cherry pick” items to refer to out of context….

On p.79-80 he gives a clear description of the characteristics of the Apulo-Corinthian helmets. Certainly the Autun helmet does not fit into this definition..

You forgot to mention the reason why. Paddock specifically excludes “parade helmets” as being outside the scope of his study (P.38 ), and his definition is aimed solely at ‘battleworthy’ examples. Clearly he regards the Autun helmet as a “parade” item, though others do not.

In general we have to agree to disagree upon the interpretation of Roman art. Where you say it doesn´t have an archaizing character…..

I have never said this! Of course I agree with you that much Roman Art was deliberately ‘archaised’ e.g. a God or Hero deliberately depicted in what the artist thought of as ‘ancient’ armour, but equally much was intended to be ‘contemporary’ and even portraiture.

…. i.e. the Apulo-Corinthian helmets depicted in art were actually used at the time where they were depicted, even when there is no other material evidence, I say that the interpretation of display of weapons in Roman iconography must be made with much more caution and method….

I agree with you here, most certainly...but so must ‘material’ evidence as we shall see post. I would contend that ALL evidence must be critically considered.

…. We also see "normal" Corinthians in Roman art, no-one would argue that they were used at the time of Augustus, though, I think

Again, I agree with you........And where we do there is a reason for it e.g. a copy of earlier Greek or Hellenistic Art, or a deliberate association with the past for propaganda reasons of an Emperor. This of course does not apply where a subject such as an ordinary legionary soldier is being shown – such as on the ‘Ahenobarbus’ frieze.

So:
Without a proper critical apparatus applied to them I refuse to accept the Roman iconography as a valid source for the question we discuss. If relevant method is applied and the sources are critically examined, I´d of course accept any doubtless proofs.

Here is where we differ. You take a somewhat 'narrow' approach and seek certainties ("doubtless proofs") and I adopt a 'broader' approach, considering all sources critically, and then speaking of possibilities and probabilities, because very little is certain.The application of some artificial ‘critical apparatus’ is neither here nor there. Nor are artificial 'classifications’ of equipment into neat compartments or styles, because they frequently overlap, especially in helmets e.g. helmets that have characteristics of both ‘Boeotian’ and ‘Attic’ styles, or ‘Montefortino’ and ‘Coolus’ types, Not to mention that different commentators use different 'critical apparatus' e.g. names ( 'Apulo-Corinthian', 'Etrusco-Corinthian' 'Italo-Corinthian') or typologies ( Paddock and Bottini use different criteria for example)

If you insist on ‘doubtless proofs’, then best give up all study of the past. Our knowledge – from all fields – is at best fragmentary and I believe, as do most other scholars, that we can only ever talk of possibilities and probabilities.

Don’t you think it significant that ALL credible and serious scholars e.g Russell-Robinson, Connolly, Bishop and Coulston and Paddock and Bottini being considered here, examine ALL sources of evidence – archaeological, iconographic and literary ?? This method is universal, including German scholars such as Kunze, Ulbert and Schramm, or French such as Coussin ( though more modern scholars, with the advance of knowledge are best at this – and no doubt future knowledge will of course change many presently held views.)

I have no problem in seeing the Apulo-Corinthians used for a while after the end of the south-Italian gift-burials, especially I can see them used in the second Punic war, where old gear was taken from the houses and used again etc.
But certainly not for a period of 300 years, at least without material evidence.
A fair point, but clearly their use 'faded' over time, until we see their last vestige in the late 1 C BC with their depiction on the column in the Perigeux museum and the Autun helmet, as per Russell-Robinson ( who calls them 'Etruro-Corinthian' ).
That appears to be a change to your earlier view that:

and came out of use certainly not later than the 3rd c. BC.

i.e. not used after 300 BC, since you now allow their use in the Punic Wars to 202 BC.
I guess this means you noticed that one of Paddock’s Type 2 helmets (5-4 C ) came from a 4-3 C grave i.e. c. 300 BC– but if you are prepared to allow their use 100 years after this tomb find with little or no evidence for use c. 200 BC, then why not 200 years, evidenced by the Ahenobarbus frieze and Etruscan sculpture?
After all, Paddock does:

”However there is plenty of pictorial evidence depicting their use as late as 100 B.C. ( e.g. the Ahenobarbus relief” ( p.105)

- and also references elsewhere to iconographic evidence.

Paddock has no helmet type named the "Etrusco-Corinthian" helmet. At least I couldn´t find one.....

Did you not read his introduction where he discusses the fact that this type has had many names,?

Instead he says on p.86 : Of the thirty-eight helmet where a more exact location is available, ninety percent come from Italy, south of a line drawn between Naples and Foggia. From their distribution in this area, it is obvious that the origins of the Apulo-Corinthian helmet are without doubt to be found in Magna Graecia, but more specifically in northern and central Apulia

….and this is the reason most scholars now use the term “Apulo-Corinthian”….

And, p.88:
Outside Apulia the distribution is more sporadic, the two helmets from Sicily (Nos. 1 and 3 ), which are both of type I and therefore
in early in the sequence possibly belonged to mercenaries serving there. This would seem to agree with other evidence for Italian mercenaries at this period as attested by finds of Italic defensive equipment found on Corsica and in North Africa

plus
The remaining five provenanced examples fall well beyond the area of Apulian influence. They consist of two helmets from Campania and three fron Etruria. The two helmets from Campania (Nos, 25 and 50. )
come from Naples and Capua respectively and are of types III and V. This gives them a date range of between the 5th and the 4th centuries
B. C. i.e. the period of Etruscan domination. The three remaining helmets (Nos. 53,55 and 56. ) come from Etruria, two have more accurate
provenances and come respectively from Chiusi and Vulci.
Although Stary (1982,5.) has questioned the provenance of at least
one of these three Etruscan finds, he presents little evidence to
prove his case and an Etruscan context is just as likely since these items
could easily have reached Etruria by way of trade and is a reasonable
explanation given their commonplace depiction in Etruscan and Roman art from the 4th to the Ist centuries B.C.

By way of trade. No "ETRUSCO"-Corinthians.

He is simply using this as one example of why we have no reason to doubt the Etruscan provenance, as Stary does, for even if they were not made in Etruria, then they could have “easily reached Etruria by trade ...” He is not ruling out their being made there, nor, because we now accept that the type originated in Apulia, hence its new name, does it mean that helmets of this type could not have been made in Etruria, where they appear in iconography more than anywhere else. ( which is why at one time they were referred to as “Etrusco-Corinthian “ ), not to mention that in addition to those definitely from Etruria there are several more ( at least three) that are probably from there...

He also is using basically the same typology as Bottini established, just adds two more categories. p. 91-92.

You may have only superficially browsed Paddock – probably only the Apulo-Corinthian section too, not the full 1,000 pages ! ( understandably! )
I recommend a more thorough study - it has much to offer on the subject generally.
In fact Paddock’s typology is NOT Bottini’s “just adding two more” – it is completely different ! Paddock’s types 2 &3 partially cover Bottini’s ‘B’, type 4 overlaps “B’ & ‘C’, type 5 overlaps ‘B’ & ‘C’ and so on.

As far as I´m concerned, this debate is closed, unless you can bring any evidence for a continuity in the use of the Apulo-Corinthian which is NOT possibly artistic convention / historicized display and methodological correctly discussed as such and in its context.

As I said earlier, it seems illogical to accept use in the “second Punic war” with little or no evidence, and yet reject use down to 100 BC – for which there is the Ahenobarbus relief, accepted by all the best scholars of the subject including Paddock, not to mention all the many Etruscan sculptures and paintings down to the 1st C BC.