03-07-2015, 02:53 PM
What i find interesting in these helmets is that all of them come from Italy, despite the fact that their earlier representations come from Attica and date to the 6th century bc, whereas most of the Italian helmets date to the 4th century bc. Attic art, even the Parthenon itself continue to represent it as one of the most frequent helmets, but i have seen none of them in the archeological record in mainland Greece.
Khaire
Giannis
Giannis is correct (when is he not?) regarding the lack of a clear archeological record in mainland Greece for these helmets. When we add to that the confusing manner of naming ancient Greek helmets from find spots rather than where we now know they were developed (Illyrian and Thracian helmets come to mind) the average museum visitor can leave the Greek galleries more confused than when he/she entered.
So many artifacts are listed with Italy as the source that more than once a student has informed me that he/she made the "startling" discovery that it was Southern Italy that influenced Mainland Greece rather than the other way around. Of course burial customs play a huge role in what fills up our museums as well as the nature and usage of metals, and the desires of looters to take only the most valuable objects for resale.
Museums should inform the public that the artifact record can inform as well as distort our understanding of the past. What we have is just a small sliver of the material culture available to the ancients. Using other sources as Giannis does, artistic and architectural, will provide a broader understanding, but at the same time the question lingers about why so very few Chalcidian helmets have survived when the artistic record abounds in such helmets.
Was it just an artistic convention?
Khaire
Giannis
Giannis is correct (when is he not?) regarding the lack of a clear archeological record in mainland Greece for these helmets. When we add to that the confusing manner of naming ancient Greek helmets from find spots rather than where we now know they were developed (Illyrian and Thracian helmets come to mind) the average museum visitor can leave the Greek galleries more confused than when he/she entered.
So many artifacts are listed with Italy as the source that more than once a student has informed me that he/she made the "startling" discovery that it was Southern Italy that influenced Mainland Greece rather than the other way around. Of course burial customs play a huge role in what fills up our museums as well as the nature and usage of metals, and the desires of looters to take only the most valuable objects for resale.
Museums should inform the public that the artifact record can inform as well as distort our understanding of the past. What we have is just a small sliver of the material culture available to the ancients. Using other sources as Giannis does, artistic and architectural, will provide a broader understanding, but at the same time the question lingers about why so very few Chalcidian helmets have survived when the artistic record abounds in such helmets.
Was it just an artistic convention?
Joe Balmos
