Brows of pseudo corinthian origin?

[Paullus Scipio]

Christian wrote:

The Autun helmet is not an Apulo-Corinthian, it just has some elements from them, and others that are not from them.

We've had this discussion before, as to whether what are now called 'Apulo-Corinthian' helmet usage diasppeared. Most surviving examples date 5th-4th C BC and come from tombs, but the fact that helmets stopped being placed in tombs after c. 300 BC does not necessarily mean they stopped being used, and indeed we see them in iconography fairly frequently - the 2nd C BC Pergamum reliefs, the 1st C BC 'Ahenobarbus' relief worn by a Tribune/Mars and a soldier, 1st C BC-1st C AD Pompeii paintings, and then the 'Autun' example, which Russell-Robinson, the doyen of Roman helmet scholars classified as belonging to this group. Anyone looking at it can see its ancestry. Of course it has some elements but not others.....all helmet types evolved over time, not to mention that they vary individually too !!

Last time you conceded this....

Youre´right about the helmet, I´m wrong, that´s it.

Both statements quoted here cannot be true, since they are contradictory. Which do you now say is false ? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[caiusbeerquitius]

I wrote the latter statement because IMO it is a waste of my time to discuss this matter with you. I´ll waste some time now, for the sake of the initial question by Uhrisa.

Your argument is nothing but an assumption for which we have no proof in the material culture, it is based on the display of the helmets alone, which is critical, better, wrong, as is explained in detail in the article I quoted.
Apart from that your "sources" are far from clear. The "Domitius-ara" Mars-helmet is not necessarily an Apulo-Corinthian, it is more probably a hellenistic helmet like the one worn by the soldier to the left, as recent discussions of the relief have shown. Pergamon: Where are there helmets that can doubtless be identified as Apulo-Corinthians I wonder? But in general: The article I quoted above is essential in understanding the atavistic character of the display of armour and weapons in Roman art. I suggest you read it first, before making arguments here. This will easily explain Pompeji, but still even many of the Pompeji-helmets said to be Apulo-Corinthian are rather hellenistic types. Or Corinthians.

Pictorial evidence / iconography must be subject to a similar apparatus of methods as one is using for texts, when being interpreted. Assuming that pictorial evidence is photorealistic and was always up-to-date when it was made is about as safe as assuming that every word any ancient author wrote is correct.

Calling for Robinson as an authority is
1. an argumentum ad verecundiam
2. Robinson has in many cases been utterly wrong in his dating of helmets (e.g. Imp, Gal F,H), so the non-argument of yours is even a bad one.

Most surviving examples date 5th-4th C BC and come from tombs, but the fact that helmets stopped being placed in tombs after c. 300 BC does not necessarily mean they stopped being used, and indeed we see them in iconography fairly frequently -

No, it doesn´t mean that. As soon as you can show any other material evidence for Apulo-Corinthian helmets from younger contexts you will have a point. However, why should people have stopped burying only the Apulo-Corinthians, but still buried other helmet types, I wonder ^^
It might be an idea to apply occam´s razor to your argument above as well... And maybe you want to look at the maps for the Apulo-Corinthians in "Antike Helme", about where they were found and to when they date. Just out of statistical probabilities it is weird to assume what you propose.

Both statements quoted here cannot be true, since they are contradictory. Which do you now say is false ?

Equally an argumentum ad personam will not further your statement. In fact, it just shows what kind of arguments you seem to have to use to be able to support your position.
´Nuff said.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Christian, you have a nice shop with a lot of deepeeka stuff on it, is the hobby your only backing? or do you have a phD in Ancient science to substantiate your imho very arrogant statements in your last posting ?

just a question, since you do not come across as a scholar from what i have read so far.

To state the Autun helmet is not apulo-Corinthian is plainly wrong and to forget it was found near Bibracte in a Caesarian context is also a little bit inconsistent.

M.VIB.M.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Sorry, but you can see in photos of the helmet tha tit is clearly an Apulo-corinthian that has been dolled up
a fair bit!

[caiusbeerquitius]

We clearly have a helmet here that has some elements of Apulo-Corinthian helmets, and also lacks some. All information on Apulo-Corinthian helmets can be found on this wonderful site: [url:1690c3bh]http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dpd/italica/apcor/apcor.html[/url]
What you see is that the Autun helmet has an actual face on it, rather than a chorinthian helmet face. Which is a huge difference, best visible at the nose. The similarities are the general shape, and the "eye-brow-section". That´s about it. This helmet seems to be rather something that was copied after a relief, a statue or the like, while the maker certainly did not know all details of what he was copying. The material culture does not provide any evidence to make a direct link between the Apulo-Cornithians and the Autun helmet possible. So the Autun helmet is certainly NOT an Apulo-Corinthian. It is a unique find, by characteristics, material and decoration, as well as by date.

@ MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS: From what I can see your posting only tells something about you and your character, certainly not about me. An argumentum ad personam will certainly not further your cause as well. And about the actual arguments you seem to have very little to say.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Argumentum ad personam is EXACTLY what you do with Scipio, hence my remarks.

That is the only reason why i react to your statement that way, i personally do not have any argument whatsoever with you.

furthermore, i am pointing out that your idea is flawed. while the site you adhere to is indeed a very interesting one, it by no means is an official and therefore ultimate and total classification.

The idea posed in the original posting is wether or not the brows on several Ico helmets were incorporated on the later Imperial-Gallic types.

To thoroughly investigate this one should not only take EVERY helmet ever found into account, but also use depictions of helmets in various art-forms from Etruscan and Latin periods and before.

Only then should one be able to either prove or disprove this theory by approximation, with arguments, biblipgraphy, pictography etc.

The idea of the original poster is not that dubious at all and is in the realms of the idea of some other scholars who state
cavalry helmets may not all have been cavalry helmets, but might also contain some higher officer class helmets.

The idea that Roman high officers must have continued to wear some form of attic/corinthian style helmets is also not that strange. That we do not find them that much in an archaeological context does not imply they were not used at all.
Helmets were used years in a row, and especially valuable helmets would probably not have survived or been offered to the gods.

M.VIB.M.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

It seems to be a small step in the evolution from this http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dpd/italica/apcor/E-09_1.jpg
to this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... casque.jpg

There is even one with the openings covered in a sheet of bronze. You ca nsee the formation of a nasel on the autun in the photo.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Argumentum ad personam is EXACTLY what you do with Scipio, hence my remarks.

No, it is not, because I don´t use my statement as an argument for the topic we re talking about. I state that I regard arguing at all with him on the subject is IMO a waste of time. That´s a different layer of meaning.

That is the only reason why i react to your statement that way, i personally do not have any argument whatsoever with you.

Well, you sort of insult me and question my authority to have an own opinion. I am quite sure that Paul is able to take a position on his own. He and I are absolutely able to wipe the dirt away in front of our on doors, methinks.

furthermore, i am pointing out that your idea is flawed. while the site you adhere to is indeed a very interesting one, it by no means is an official and therefore ultimate and total classification.

Well, it uses Bottini´s classification, which is commonly accepted in the academic world. If that´s not enough, please hint me to the official classification you are talking about.

The idea posed in the original posting is wether or not the brows on several Ico helmets were incorporated on the later Imperial-Gallic types.

It seems to have slipped your attention that the argument changed to: Was the Apulo-Corinthian used later than what we have as dated examples from Southern Italian tombs? And: Is the Autun helmet an Apulo-Corinthian helmet?

To thoroughly investigate this one should not only take EVERY helmet ever found into account, but also use depictions of helmets in various art-forms from Etruscan and Latin periods and before.

Indeed. And I stated above what the prerequisites for interpreting the art are supposed to be. I also quoted the relevant article for the tools neccessary for interpreting Roman depictions of these items. Twice. A critical approach with a certain method is need here. Probably slipped your attention. Of course the Autun helmet IS in consideration, otherwise it wouldn´t be a subject in the discussion.

The idea of the original poster is not that dubious at all

Correct.

and is in the realms of the idea of some other scholars who state
cavalry helmets may not all have been cavalry helmets, but might also contain some higher officer class helmets

I don´t know what the discussion about cavalry helmets has to do with this.

The idea that Roman high officers must have continued to wear some form of attic/corinthian style helmets is also not that strange. That we do not find them that much in an archaeological context does not imply they were not used at all.

We don´t find them at all, that´s the problem.(Apulo-Corinthians, noone´s been talking about Attic helmets). Well, as Tarbicus once put it, it can also not be excluded that the Romans had gunpowder, the had charcoal, sulphur and salpeter. This is not a methodologically acceptable approach to archaeological and historical questions, though.

Helmets were used years in a row, and especially valuable helmets would probably not have survived or been offered to the gods.

And on what scholarly expertise or publication do you found this argument, I wonder?

[caiusbeerquitius]

It seems to be a small step in the evolution from this http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dpd/italica/apcor/E-09_1.jpg
to this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File : ... casque.jpg

It seems, yes. But equally it seems that there are enough differences.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Will go into your last remark....

Several helmets have been found with numerous names inscribed to them, indicating these helmets were used for a long time.
Also, Montefortino type helmets have been found in later earth layers, also proving these helmets were in use in combination with Imperial gallic types from a later date.

About the "personal" attack: its the arrogant tone in which you write your comments that started it. refrain from that and you are in the clear. Moderator or not, you have no reason whatsoever to slack anyone who might have studied the subject less than yourself.

Personally i dont know squat about Rome and its archeology, the only thing i know are interpretations of finds, interpretations of texts and interpretations of fresci, reliefs, statues et cetera.

All of these interpretations are from the period AFTER the Romans existed and ruled.

Therefore i do not for one moment claim to have any authority on these matters. You yourself do.

Thats my problem with several scholars all claiming to know what Rome really was all about.

Fact is, we do NOT know. we can interpret, have ideas, even debate our theories, but we always will have to acknowledge the fact of our ignorance on the matter.

No ancient Roman is here to tell us what it really was like, we have only written sources which shed a tiny light on the life of the ancients.

M.VIB.M.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Several helmets have been found with numerous names inscribed to them, indicating these helmets were used for a long time.
Also, Montefortino type helmets have been found in later earth layers, also proving these helmets were in use in combination with Imperial gallic types from a later date.

Montefortino and Imperial Gallic in a same startigraphical layer? Where? Where published?

About the "personal" attack: its the arrogant tone in which you write your comments that started it. refrain from that and you are in the clear. Moderator or not, you have no reason whatsoever to slack anyone who might have studied the subject less than yourself.

You mix arrogant and sober.

Personally i dont know squat about Rome and its archeology, the only thing i know are interpretations of finds, interpretations of texts and interpretations of fresci, reliefs, statues et cetera.

Very, very, very interesting.

All of these interpretations are from the period AFTER the Romans existed and ruled.

Mhm.

Therefore i do not for one moment claim to have any authority on these matters.You yourself do.

I can´t see alogical connection between these two sentences. What are you saying? Something like: "Because all statements about the Romans were made after the Romans vanished you have no authority to state something about them"?
And: I don´t. This is about a modern classification system and terminology, so actually a modern topic. Different level than what you are talking about.

Thats my problem with several scholars all claiming to know what Rome really was all about.

Well, then avoid them.

Fact is, we do NOT know. we can interpret, have ideas, even debate our theories, but we always will have to acknowledge the fact of our ignorance on the matter.

No ancient Roman is here to tell us what it really was like, we have only written sources which shed a tiny light on the life of the ancients.

Aha, So, then there´s actually no point in having this forum at all... :roll:

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Nuff said. :twisted: :lol:

M.VIB.M.

[Paullus Scipio]

Christian wrote:

What Paul writes may be correct or not. I prefer not to draw connections as long as they can´t be proven or are not congruent with the archaeological evidence from material culture.

You will notice that I merely talk about possibilities and probabilities. You tend to speak of certainties, without allowing for the fact that much of our data is uncertain, or “fuzzy”. Nor can highly individualised items such as hand-made helmets be categorised into ‘classification boxes’ easily – these are after all, merely modern assignments, and subjective at that.

"Am i wrong presuming the Apulo-Pseudo Corinthians still in use in Ceasars legions?"

Yes. Sorry.
"Still my question stands, are the Apulo-Pseudo Corinthians an influence in the development of the browridges on Gallic an Imperial gallic helmets."

No, certainly not.

One cannot express absolute opinions such as these. As my post indicated, there is some evidence for the Apulo-Corinthian being used in/around the time of Caesar – the Ahenobarbus relief ( dated 120- 30 BC and most likely 40-30 BC – see what I mean about “fuzzy” data? ) which seems to show two examples, and which was the source for Connolly’s illustrations.

All that Christian could reasonably have said was ‘In my opinion, probably not, for although there is some iconographic evidence and one archaeological example – the Autun helmet – no others have so far turned up in the archaeological record for this time period ( for which there could be many reasons).’

And similarly: ‘Probably not, since in my opinion, Apulo – Corinthian helmets seem to have gone out of use c. 300 BC. Since the Autun helmet would appear to contradict this I’m going to classify it as Not-Apulo-Corinthian, and I’m going to consider that the Ahenobarbus relief shows archaic helmets, not contemporary ones.’

I on the other hand am suggesting that our ‘uncertain/fuzzy’ evidence does allow for the possibility, and if not, then the centuries of contact between Graeco-Roman and Celtic helmet traditions make it likely that this feature passed from Graeco-Roman to Celtic helmets, as I demonstrated other features passed from one to the other.

2. Robinson has in many cases been utterly wrong in his dating of helmets (e.g. Imp, Gal F,H), so the non-argument of yours is even a bad one.

The fact that further finds and the passage of time have refined/revised some of Robinson’s dating does not mean that “in many cases” he was “utterly wrong”. And even if it were true, wrong in one instance doesn’t mean wrong in all. To indulge in your penchant for ‘latinisms’ that is an ‘argumentum ad absurdam’.
Robinson evidently believed that Celtic ‘eyebrows’ derived from Graeco-Roman types, and indeed illustrated another fragment of 1st C BC sculpture showing Roman helmets with a ‘monobrow’.
You also missed the point, that classification is arbitrary and subjective – Robinson considered the Autun helmet, found at a Caesarian site, an “Apulo- Corinthian” type. You say otherwise, presumably based on some other classification. Nevertheless there is no denying the ancestry of the Autun helmet, as Byron points out.

However, why should people have stopped burying only the Apulo-Corinthians, but still buried other helmet types, I wonder

They didn’t ! the Lucanian type culture that produced these helmets flourished in the 4 C BC, and the tomb practices ended around 290 BC…that’s why we don’t find them ( or any other helmet types) after that. Others were found in Etruscan tombs, hence the alternate name “Etrusco-Corinthian “ helmets. The Romans didn’t use such tombs, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t use the helmet type, does it ? To suggest that use of the helmet died with the cessation of that type of tomb is another ‘argumentum ad absurdam’

Just out of statistical probabilities it is weird to assume what you propose.

No, it is weird to suppose that use of this type of helmet was restricted just to a geographical area and time bounded by the tomb finds.

M.Vib.M /Henryjk wrote:

To thoroughly investigate this one should not only take EVERY helmet ever found into account, but also use depictions of helmets in various art-forms from Etruscan and Latin periods and before.

Exactly! I would agree, and as I have just pointed out, the accident of survival of a 'slice sample' of these helmets due to a certain type of burial practice is no evidence at all of overall usage.

[caiusbeerquitius]

You will notice that I merely talk about possibilities and probabilities. You tend to speak of certainties, without allowing for the fact that much of our data is uncertain, or “fuzzy”. Nor can highly individualised items such as hand-made helmets be categorised into ‘classification boxes’ easily – these are after all, merely modern assignments, and subjective at that.

Aha.

One cannot express absolute opinions such as these. As my post indicated, there is some evidence for the Apulo-Corinthian being used in/around the time of Caesar – the Ahenobarbus relief ( dated 120- 30 BC and most likely 40-30 BC – see what I mean about “fuzzy” data? ) which seems to show two examples, and which was the source for Connolly’s illustrations.

I am quite familiar with this relief. See what I wrote about it above. There apparently is no Apulo-Corinthian on it. There also was a lengthy discussion here o RAT just about that, also showing that the helmets on the Relief are hellenistic types.
I also quoted an article which shows exactly how the presence of atavistic elements on Roman art is to be interpreted. Instead if commenting on that you put up straw men or simply state again what you already said. That´s why I initially said it´s a waste of time discussing this with you. I was also asking for your Apulo-Corinthians on the Pergamon relief, but apparently you can´t find them.

The fact that further finds and the passage of time have refined/revised some of Robinson’s dating does not mean that “in many cases” he was “utterly wrong”. And even if it were true, wrong in one instance doesn’t mean wrong in all. To indulge in your penchant for ‘latinisms’ that is an ‘argumentum ad absurdam’.

What you quote was not my argument, my argument was under 1. It is funny (again) that you don´t actually comment on that, but put up an other straw man.
And this is not a penchant for latinisms, but the normal use of decription of arguments used worldwide in logical argumentation.

You also missed the point, that classification is arbitrary and subjective – Robinson considered the Autun helmet, found at a Caesarian site, an “Apulo- Corinthian” type. You say otherwise, presumably based on some other classification. Nevertheless there is no denying the ancestry of the Autun helmet, as Byron points out.

Apparently you didn´t read what I wrote above:
" So the Autun helmet is certainly NOT an Apulo-Corinthian. It is a unique find, by characteristics, material and decoration, as well as by date"

Robinson evidently believed that Celtic ‘eyebrows’ derived from Graeco-Roman types, and indeed illustrated another fragment of 1st C BC sculpture showing Roman helmets with a ‘monobrow’.

This is probably the case. it´s just that it´s unlikely that the feature came from the Apulo-Corinthians, since we have no evidence for them after 300 BCE. Other hellenistic helmet types with volutes etc. were quite longer in use and show up in the archaeological record as well.

Others were found in Etruscan tombs, hence the alternate name “Etrusco-Corinthian “ helmets.

How many? Where?

To suggest that use of the helmet died with the cessation of that type of tomb is another ‘argumentum ad absurdam’

No, it is not. I didn´t suggest so, I stated that we have no material evidence for the continuation of the use of these helmets. As such it is sensible to assume that the helmets, which were mainly used in a very confined area in a rather confined period came out of use until we have evidence that this was not the case. The Autun helmet can hardly be such an item, since it is a singular and different object.

Exactly! I would agree, and as I have just pointed out, the accident of survival of a 'slice sample' of these helmets due to a certain type of burial practice is no evidence at all of overall usage.

See, that´s the main difference. I suggest to draw no conclusions without evidence, you suggest that it´s O.K.
So, I expect you will finally bring up some evidence, that would be to show that the helmets on display on the Domitius-Ara are Apulo-Corinthians, then show the Apuol-Corinthians from Pergamon, and then show us the number of the Etruscan examples. Looking forward to your evidence.

[MeinPanzer]

I am quite familiar with this relief. See what I wrote about it above. There apparently is no Apulo-Corinthian on it. There also was a lengthy discussion here o RAT just about that, also showing that the helmets on the Relief are hellenistic types.
I also quoted an article which shows exactly how the presence of atavistic elements on Roman art is to be interpreted. Instead if commenting on that you put up straw men or simply state again what you already said. That´s why I initially said it´s a waste of time discussing this with you. I was also asking for your Apulo-Corinthians on the Pergamon relief, but apparently you can´t find them.

I agree with you here, Christian, that the helmet on the Ahenobarbus relief is probably just a Hellenistic type - I would have to see a face on the visor, no matter how diminutive, to declare it Apulo-Corinthian. However, there is an Apulo-Corinthian on the Pergamene weapons reliefs, and I will post a picture of it when I get home - it's on one of the fragments, and the face is clearly visible.

I would just say that I think your stance in this discussion is a bit odd. Ultimately, helmet typologies are only useful to classify the helmets and representations we have, and the typology follows from the artefacts, not vice versa. To state that the Autun helmet isn't Apulo-Corinthian by appealing to typologies and classifications is just an arbitrary distinction, but I think it is clear for all to see that the helmet is a later development of that type of helmet, no matter how debased. Call it what you will, but it is clearly a helmet if not technically Apulo-Corinthian, then Apulo-Corinthian-derived (like the Phrygian and Attic helmet types that appear later in the Imperial period).