Gallic A feathers

[Matthew Amt]

Does anyone have a good idea when feather tubes went out of style? Did they fade away during the Late Republic?

As others have shown, there were a lot of feather tube arrangements used in the earlier Republic, for instance the Samnites loved the things. A fan of 5 or 6 across the top, or neato little wire-coil feather holders behind the spiffy big bronze wings, etc. Not a lot around that is that involved by the Late Republic. And the simple side tubes on these Coolus and Imperial-Gallic helmets are from the Principate, not the Republic at all. (Probably!) So a little bit of a "feather tube gap" in the Late Republic, it looks like, though with a little digging around it's quite possible something would turn up.

Matt, your site shows a Monte E with feather tubes, although it's an illustration, not a photo of an artifact.

That's all pinched from Robinson. That helmet in particular I'd have to say is about the same date as Coolus E--same width and angle of neckguard, same brow reinforce, etc. In fact, at least one of the Montefortino E helmets that Robinson shows actually *is* a Coolus E, I'd say! Even has a soldered-on crest knob.

Valete,

Matthew

[Tarbicus]

there were a lot of feather tube arrangements used in the earlier Republic, for instance the Samnites loved the things. A fan of 5 or 6 across the top,

Sure the 'tubes' aren't flat and folded?

though with a little digging around it's quite possible something would turn up.

Matt, if you can't come up with it then what's the likelihood? :wink:

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Any Montefortinos in the helmet database with feather tubes?

There is one here - http://www.ffil.uam.es/equus/warmas/tipolog/fig52.html

[Matthew Amt]

there were a lot of feather tube arrangements used in the earlier Republic, for instance the Samnites loved the things. A fan of 5 or 6 across the top,

Sure the 'tubes' aren't flat and folded?

Nope, no idea! In years past the assumption was that they were tubes--hey, that's what Connolly showed!

though with a little digging around it's quite possible something would turn up.

Matt, if you can't come up with it then what's the likelihood? :wink: [/quote]

Are you kidding? I've been sending all the questions to YOU, Tarby! Cuz these days I'm a lazy bum who is thrilled to let all you younger motivated guys do all the hard research! Back when I was looking at this all the time, I might have been able to tell you offhand, but stuff sifts out through the steel sieve of my mind.... And new stuff is turning up that I haven't tried to commit to memory. So, oo-rah, boys, go to it! Lemme know what you find!

There is one here - http://www.ffil.uam.es/equus/warmas/tipolog/fig52.html

Ah, perfect, thanks! See? All I have to do is sit back and let my reputation shine untarnished. Hey, c'mon, I've been sick all week...

Valete,

Matthew

PS: Actually, my decongestant-fogged brain is currently struggling with a publication that claims many Mycenaean bronze daggers were made of 2 flat layers forged together! This just flies in the face of what you can *do* with bronze, but the damn things are splitting open from bad corrosion in just that way. The rest of the world was simply casting things like that in one piece. I am boggled. More data required. I wish I could breathe...

[M. Demetrius]

many Mycenaean bronze daggers were made of 2 flat layers forged together! This just flies in the face of what you can *do* with bronze,

So you're saying they did things that we consider impossible, by means we have zero understanding of, and they didn't bother to write down their procedures? Just like those ancients: no thought for the future!

Well, as for the tubes on the Gallic A, I think I may as well forego them, because I couldn't prove they really did that, and if I read all the related links and posts here correctly, it's more likely that would be really early, rather than late, and the exception rather than the rule. I would raise more questions and eyebrows than a couple of feathers would jazz up my helmet. Bad tradeoff. Never mind.

[Celer]

Salve Mat,

Re the 'forged' Mycenian daggers. Alan Williams told me that the finest later bronze swords were cast in two parts. The outer was hollow-cast, first with a higher tin/zinc content to keep a better edge - do this right and it's about twice as hard, though more brittle. Then simply pour softer standard bronze (90% copper/10% tin maybe with some lead in it as well) down the hollow to give the blade more flexibility - the trick is to do this without leaving any bubbles in the middle.

As for the ancients being better bronze-workers than us ... I absolutely agree! Look at ancient statues and the quality of the large-piece casting. Then go to Harrods in London and look at the tatty Memorial Statue to Diana and Dodi - supposedly the best bronze casting to date - and see just how lumpy and crude it is in comparison.

Vale,

Celer.

[M. Demetrius]

Probably the interest is different:
Ours--getting it done (completion is the goal)
Theirs--doing it (the ability to do)

[Matthew Amt]

Ooooo, Thanks, Celer!! That makes more sense, at least some. I was wondering if 2 blade halves could have been brazed together with a lower-melting-point bronze between them. In this case you could actually clamp the two halves together and pour metal between them. Since there were other objects in which a solid fitting was cast directly onto a finished item of hammered sheet, that's a proven technique.

Gonna bounce this off the casting experts at the Bronze Age Center.

Vale,

Matthew