Legate/Tribune helmet hunt

[caiusbeerquitius]

Crispus,
yes, one could see it that way. There was a lengthy discussion about this a while ago. just to clarify my points

However, the Autun helmet also features a full face and its outline (if the attached rows of embossed laurel leaves were to be removed), with its backward sloping form is very similar to the outline of the Italio-Corinthians, which means that to me at least, there is a strong possibility that it is descended from them (form being more significant, to my mind, than decoration).

Yes, but equally it could be simply copied from a wall painting or the like, or modeled after an old piece hanging somewhere in a household from 300 years ago, and made to fit the current taste. Since there is such a long break in findings, it seems first of all the simplest explanation that there is no direct continuity. Since it does not fit into any of the categories established by the archaeologists that classified and investigated the Apulo-Corinthian helmets, but since it shows some similarities, we could call it a helmet "influenced" by the Apulo-Corinthians. It could fit the current taste, just as we have in plastic art archaizing elements and periods. In short: If we cannot prove a "direct" continuity, we should not assume there is one.

The third century helmets show full faces on the peaks but if the masks and large embossed crests were to be removed I think that they too would reflect the form of a debased Corinthian type helmet, which would make the peaks on these helmets equivalent to the front rea on the Autun helmet.

Again we have a break of roughly 200 years. Same argument as above.
In fact this "renaissance" of old styles goes very well with what J.E. Lendon writes in "Soldiers and Ghosts" methinks.

Now, it is indeed true that we do not know of any archaeological specimens which would cover the long gaps in time, but then again, that does not mean they did not exist.

That is true. Methodologically we have to assume that there are none, until we find some. We often like to see continuities where there actually are none. There is the saying: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", But I´d like to stress that absence of evidence is certainly NOT evidence. And can´t ever be.

I am sure the Autun helmet would not have existed in isolation.

O.K., I understand that, and I´m willing to share your opinion, but: It is like the dead or living cat in the box. Could be, or couldn´t. it is just as safe to say that it is a strange piece, and thus one could be sure that it existed in isolation. To say it did or didn´t should in both cases be supported by some kind of evidence.

It is worth rmembering that, for whatever reason, some items do not survive in large numbers. Think, for example, of the survival of manicae in he archaeological record.

This is absolutely true.

We have ample representational evidence for their use in the late empire, yet the excavated examples date to the Flavian and Hadrianic periods. If we were to work by the archaeological evidence alone we would have to question their existence in later periods as anything more than things inspired by old representations.

In fact, regarding the complexity of interpreting ancient art, this is exactly what we must do. Following your argument, we would also have to assume the use of Corinthian helmets in Late Antiquity. So, until we have some finds to support the hypothesis, it is much safer to assume artistic convention / tradition.

Now, I am not about to propose trying to reconstruct something from a period from which no archaeological examples are known - there would be too many short term variables to be able to draw a proper conclusion as to their appearance in the period between known examples from those known examples.

Yes, I agree.

What I *am* prepared to do however, is to suggest that we be prepared to agree that they probably did exist, even though we do not know what they looked like and so cannot reconstruct them.

Well, I would be happy to see such an item, such a find. But as long as there is none, I am methodologically obliged to assume that there are none.

Again: We are easily deceived by ancient art. We often like to interpret it in a way that fits our argument, and often this leads to a teleological use of these sources. However, the arthistorical branch of classical archaeology has worked out a difficult system of methods and approaches to ancient art, which takes years to learn, and years of practice until one is able to use it properly. Like any other sources that are not mere remnants of material culture, e.g. like a bone or a tool or the like, ancient art needs to be subject to a set of critical methods before it is used as a source. Where this seems to be logical to everyone for the use of literature, many people have problems in regard of applying such an apparatus of methods on pictorial evidence. Which is a pity, IMO.

So, please don´t get me wrong, I do not want to start an elitist argument or the like. See art like a language. In fact, it is some kind of language. So, to fully understand a language, one first needs to learn it, noone would probably argue against that. Also I´d like to stress that I really like the idea of a continuity for the Apulo-Corinthians, but under the limits of methodology, we cannot really make a point that there is such a continuity. But we should always be prepared that there might be one, and if evidence for this shows up, we should happily embrace it.