Toledo helmet

[tlclark]

Uncontaminated by establishment rules is what I see in the metopes, especially as the faces seem to reflect what little I've seen of Dacian art in their stylisation. If you don't, then you don't.

Ok, I think this is an entirely justifiable and rational opinion, but we have to acknowledge the large number of assumptions packed into such a statement, which you do.

[Praefectusclassis]

Oh hell, before everyone starts plundering libraries, here's the pics.
With a great big thank you to the Toledo museum of Art for getting the helmet out of storage and allowing me to take the photos in the first place.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Thanks for posting the pictures, Jasper! Finally get to see it, as can never find it on Toledos site.

Very good craftsmanship, and would make a great reenactors helmet, but did anyone really get fooled by that?

The engraving work alone is far too fresh! hock: Lets get real here! :roll:

You could put a good crest box on it and hey, a bling tribunes helm!! :lol:

[Marcus Mummius]

Thanks for posting the pictures, Jasper! Finally get to see it, as can never find it on Toledos site.

Very good craftsmanship, and would make a great reenactors helmet, but did anyone really get fooled by that?

The engraving work alone is far too fresh! hock: Lets get real here! :roll:

You could put a good crest box on it and hey, a bling tribunes helm!! :lol:

Remember that it's a silver helmet, and that oxidation was removed.

[Tarbicus]

Thanks Jasper.

I've said a number of times before on RAT, I think these helmets under discussion on TC and similar are stylised representations of the Italic A, as with other similar monuments. Above all other options, I truly believe the helmets are based on what were seen within the walls of Rome, which would not be worn by legionaries and auxilia, nor even Praetorians, simply because they weren't allowed to wear their armour. In other words, the sculptors modeled the helmets on those worn by vigiles or the urban cohorts, and "refined" them with artistic license. And I'm not just talking about the TC sculptors.

IMHO: The helmets are based on the vigiles headgear, the cylindrical shields are shorter like a gladiator's scutum, the segs look like they were described verbally ("Well mate, the plates run horizontally around the torso, and vertically at the shoulders..."), accurate gladii as seen on a Praetorian beneath his toga, and on and on...

Do I think a sculptor from a provincial capital would mimic the trends set in Rome and Italy? - Absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, and I dare say they would have travelled to see them as well, if not train there just as we see today with art schools. The thing that's most important is to judge the monuments within their context of who saw them. Not soldiers, but citizens. Their overriding and ultimate purpose was to tell a story of how great Rome was and its Emperor, and it's all about communication. For decades if not a century or two the citizen was used to recognising who was who, and if suddenly a monument contradicted that it would be unable to communicate the Emperors message. It's a code, and very important. Classic propaganda.

Look at the Ara Pacis. Everyone thinks of the giant portraits of Augustus and his family, but it's recently been argued that was secondary. If you look further down to where ordinary people without modern zoom lenses could actually view and walk around it, it's a litany of rural and agricultural iconography and remembrance. The theory is it was made so to please the massive influx of immigrants to Rome from the countryside, with a big bit on top to mremind them of who gave it and the park to them. Communication in art was very well understood by the Romans.

But, for that to work you have to make sure both parties speak the same and familiar visual language, otherwise you have thousands if not millions of citizens either unsure or nonplussed and the sculptor would have failed to communicate his patron's/paymaster's message; The 'ad locutio' gesture to indicate someone of high office or Imperium, the returned raised hands to show adoration are examples of this language. Once segs had been established for long enough, we start to see them introduced as well into the iconography because by then they would be seen for what they seem to have been - representing the legionary.

Did anyone get fooled by the Toledo helmet? Yes plenty, for honourable reasons, except Robinson who sniffed it out from the start.

Functional Italic A > Sculptural interpretation on propagandist monuments > Victorian or Edwardian interpretation of the latter creating the Toledo helmet. What we see with basing kit on purely sculptural detail that has no corresponding archaeological equivalent, or sound textual reference, is based on ancient subjective iconography of what a soldier wore IMHO. You can't say it's based on real kit, only that it's based on a sculpture. And that's partly why I have to constantly come back to Adamklissi. I make no apologies, I merely point it out all the time because it's almost like a control test of the traditional depictions, where there is no establishment tainting the picture, and the sculptors walked amongst real life Roman soldiers themselves. If their goal was to communicate a message to the locals of a fresh province, it holds up that it would be of no use to introduce the long established iconography of Rome, but to represent what the people there were used to seeing. It's a masterpiece of ancient international marketing.

And the reason we see so much more variety in modern art students' work is simply because that kind of variety didn't exist in Roman culture - i.e., Cubism, Surrealism, and the rest of the 'isms. :wink:

[Paullus Scipio]

This has been an interesting thread to read, and Travis' comments are always thought provoking, but I really find it hard to believe we are having this discussion ! :roll:

Until now, I hadn't appreciated the reason for Tarbicus' sobriquet in his signature, seemingly stating the bleeding obvious.

If you lined up half- a- dozen Roman helmets, and said " Spot the fake", I bet the majority of laymen even, would pick out the Toledo. It just absolutely screams " FAKE!!" D lol:

Can we turn this thread into something more useful, like a discussion of Roman sculpture styles ?

Uncontaminated by establishment rules is what I see in the metopes, especially as the faces seem to reflect what little I've seen of Dacian art in their stylisation. If you don't, then you don't

I'm afraid you will have to put me in the 'don't' camp, Tarbicus ! I don't see many affinities at all with local sculpture ( hard to speak of 'Dacian' - too many sub-groups ) Instead, to me, the Adamklissi metopes have a strong affinity to military funerary sculpture. No surprise then, that I consider it likely that the Adamklissi sculptors came from within the ranks, given the paucity of local arists in that part of the world at the time.

[Tarbicus]

Don't worry, I expect very few if any to agree with me. :wink: I'm looking forward to Jon Coulston's upcoming big big book on the subject of TC.

[FlaviusCrispus]

If you lined up half- a- dozen Roman helmets, and said " Spot the fake", I bet the majority of laymen even, would pick out the Toledo. It just absolutely screams " FAKE!!"

Have to agree with that. Particularly looking at Jasper's photos, it looks far more like a piece of stage armor from a Victorian theatrical production of "Julius Caesar" than anything a real Roman might have worn. Nothing — not those awful florate appliques on the dome below the ring and on the cheek guards, nor that weirdly inappropriate ram's horn on the faux visor, nor that sketchy incised scrollwork, nor the ax-head shaped cheek guards, nor the overall shape of the helmet bowl and neck flare— looks like anything on an indisputably authentic Roman military helmet. It just screams "19th century" to me. Possibly it was made as some kind of mantle piece decoration for an English expat, bought at an estate liquidation, then beaten up, distressed and patinated by some clever Syrian antique dealer and passed off as the real thing to some idiot doing a between-the-wars Grand Tour.

[sulla felix]

Look at the Ara Pacis. Everyone thinks of the giant portraits of Augustus and his family, but it's recently been argued that was secondary. If you look further down to where ordinary people without modern zoom lenses could actually view and walk around it, it's a litany of rural and agricultural iconography and remembrance. The theory is it was made so to please the massive influx of immigrants to Rome from the countryside, with a big bit on top to mremind them of who gave it and the park to them. Communication in art was very well understood by the Romans.

Interesting theory, but was not Rome essentially an agricultural community? What about the entire social structure based upon land ownership/wealth?

Functional Italic A > Sculptural interpretation on propagandist monuments > Victorian or Edwardian interpretation of the latter creating the Toledo helmet. What we see with basing kit on purely sculptural detail that has no corresponding archaeological equivalent, or sound textual reference, is based on ancient subjective iconography of what a soldier wore IMHO. You can't say it's based on real kit, only that it's based on a sculpture. And that's partly why I have to constantly come back to Adamklissi. I make no apologies, I merely point it out all the time because it's almost like a control test of the traditional depictions, where there is no establishment tainting the picture, and the sculptors walked amongst real life Roman soldiers themselves. If their goal was to communicate a message to the locals of a fresh province, it holds up that it would be of no use to introduce the long established iconography of Rome, but to represent what the people there were used to seeing. It's a masterpiece of ancient international marketing.

I would expect the citizens of Rome (the city) would have been quite familiar with what the soldiers of Rome actually looked like given that there was the odd triumphal procession through the streets? Heck some of them may even have served in the legions. The suggestion that only the Adamklissi sculptors "walked amongst real life Roman soldiers" seems a little absurd to me.

Paul Zanker's work on imagery, iconography and imperial propoganda is very interesting stuff if you have not already seen it.

[Paullus Scipio]

...given that there was the odd triumphal procession through the streets? .....

As far as I am aware, the troops in Triumphs wore "civvies", and marched unarmed.

Heck some of them may even have served in the legions

Certainly, and maybe they weren't such 'nit-pickers' as some in modern times. Many times, modern military people admire a painting or other artwork depicting an action they took part in which is 'unrealistic' in compressing action, incorrect equipment/uniform detail etc...which is perhaps un-important in the scheme of things, compared, say, to the commemorative spirit that commissioned the work.

Could you tell us more about Paul Zanker ? author ? art critic ? social commentator ?

[Praefectusclassis]

Could you tell us more about Paul Zanker

Very famous (academically) for his book Augustus und die Macht der Bilder, translated as The power of images in the age of Augustus. Very much the standard of measure for any discussion on iconography and imperial propaganda.

[Theodosius the Great]

I truly believe the helmets are based on what were seen within the walls of Rome, which would not be worn by legionaries and auxilia, nor even Praetorians, simply because they weren't allowed to wear their armour. In other words, the sculptors modeled the helmets on those worn by vigiles or the urban cohorts, and "refined" them with artistic license. And I'm not just talking about the TC sculptors.

On the other hand, we still see these helmets on the Arch of Severus. The Arch was built at a time when Legio II Parthica was stationed in Italy just outside of Rome. Even the lowliest peasants would know how their soldiers were equiped, imo.

~Theo

[sulla felix]

As far as I am aware, the troops in Triumphs wore "civvies", and marched unarmed.

Pretty sure that Pliny mentions soldier's spears covered in Laurel being carried in triumphal processions. Do not forget that the pomerium was effectively suspended for the day of the triumph thus allowing the General to maintain his military rank for the procession and lead his troops through Rome.

As for Zanker - Jasper said it all. Compulsory reading if you are going to talk about imagery/propoganda in early Imperial Rome.

[Tarbicus]

I would expect the citizens of Rome (the city) would have been quite familiar with what the soldiers of Rome actually looked like given that there was the odd triumphal procession through the streets? Heck some of them may even have served in the legions. The suggestion that only the Adamklissi sculptors "walked amongst real life Roman soldiers" seems a little absurd to me.

Count the number of triumphs you can think of, and then average them out over the number of years from the first to the last triumph. Feel free to triple the number of triumphs to cover the ones missing from the record. Once you have a figure for the average number of years between triumphs think of an event you went to that many years ago, and draw a picture of something at that event down to its detail. But as Paul points out, the triumph was without armour anyway.

Heck some of them may even have served in the legions.

That would be a tiny percentage.

The suggestion that only the Adamklissi sculptors "walked amongst real life Roman soldiers" seems a little absurd to me.

Why would the sculptors travel to a campaign or fort? What circumstances would put them in daily or even monthly contact with fully equipped soldiers, especially in Rome itself? Long distance travel was something of a dangerous affair, and generally it was the rich or merchants who travelled any distance and often with the aid of bodyguards, mostly for economic reasons or to vacation once or twice a year. Even then, it would actually be a rather large assumption that soldiers wore their panoply for civic duties like policing roads (if they did) or construction, etc, within the confines of the Empire. What's the worst those soldiers could come up against apart from ex-soldiers involved in banditry? I also think you overestimate the accuracy of memory.

J.R. Clarke in 'Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans' has this to say about the Column;
"Little wonder that scholars over the centuries tried to reconstruct the great wars from the Column's reliefs.
Unfortunately this project is doomed... Lehmann proved that the artist composed the Column's reliefs by creating variations on six stock scenes, or topoi, generally repeated in the same order. Although the end product looks like a continuous narrative, the same six scenes are repeated, with variations, throughout. ... Although the stock scenes vary in length and details, they are the building blocks of a narrative that has much more to do with the techniques of Greek and Roman epic poetry than with those of modern history.
Yet this is not to say that the Column lacks references to specific events. ..."

He then goes on to discuss how the Column is designed to convey a message of the virtues of the heirarchical organisation of the Roman state, and the virtues of Trajan himself displaying virtus, leadership, pietas and clemency, to non-military citizens and elite, and also very pointedly to slaves and non-Romans who by then made up a significant proportion of the city's population. The military structure of the campaign serves as a paradigm for how such an organised structure can guarantee success for the state.

Another aspect to the Column that to me is near proof that it completely disregards any pretence of accuracy in military dress; where's the Dacian armour? Dacia was a highly evolved, rich and powerful culture, and yet they themselves are portrayed wearing simple trousers and hats. But we do know they had armour. Not only do I think basing a Roman impression on the Column is foolhardy, but even a Dacian impression.

[Graham Sumner]

If you lined up half- a- dozen Roman helmets, and said " Spot the fake", I bet the majority of laymen even, would pick out the Toledo. It just absolutely screams " FAKE!!"

My thoughts exactly. If it was a 'Fake' intended to deceive, it should still be borne in mind that whoever did it went to a lot of trouble and expense, it is silver after all. Not I would say a cheap item knocked up in a bazaar!

It just screams "19th century" to me. Possibly it was made as some kind of mantle piece decoration for an English expat, bought at an estate liquidation, then beaten up, distressed and patinated by some clever Syrian antique dealer and passed off as the real thing to some idiot doing a between-the-wars Grand Tour.

This seems more likely to me although given the French connection, the helmet was allegedly found during the time when Syria was a French Mandate during a French organised expedition it could conceivably have come from France. Given the interest in France after the excavations at Alesia in the nineteenth century it is possible the helmet could have been made for a collector and then by the next century found its way into Syria. Feugere in 'Weapons of the Romans', illustrates another example of a ringed helmet like those on Trajan's Column which was found in France in the nineteenth century.

However it is interesting to me that the initial objections to the Toledo helmet being an original Roman helmet seem to have been that it was in silver not it's design. It is worth thinking about then that another helmet in silver was also found at the same site in Emesa at roughly the same time as the Toledo example. I am talking about that ghastly cavalry sports helmet which is now in Damascus Museum. Again in near perfect condition but I wonder if that has ever been under the same scrutiny as the Toledo helmet. Perhaps not, after all it does not look like anything on Trajan's column and does not look like a fake..... but then what is a fake supposed to look like?

Graham.