Brows of pseudo corinthian origin?

[caiusbeerquitius]

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,

Well, The classification as well as the name are made for a group of objects from a confined space and period. Material culture as well as distribution maps suggest that it came out of use. For other helmet types we still have finds from younger contexts, but not for this one.
IMO it is very far-fetched to assume from the not-so ample presentation in pictorial art that the helmets were still used later on.

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.

Exactly that is my point.
The singular find from Autun has, as I said above, some charactristics of the Apulo-Corinthian helmets, but is singular in period, material, and overall form.
It could equally be an object that was copied off a statue or an old painting in a historisizing time, which was, funny enough just en vogue in art at the time this object is dated to. In fact, this is more probable than a direct deriving from the earlier helmets, giving the odd face (the helmet has a human face on it, NOT the features of an Apulo-Corinthian or a Corinthian helmet), the missing horizontal neck-guard and the missing decoration typical for the Apulo-Corinthians. All I want to say is, that the helmet cannot be included into the group / classification for "Apulo-Corinthians" established by Bottini and widely used in the Academic world. Paul sees this differently. He wants to argue a continuity into existence which is simply not supported by the objects. And that is, a continuity of more than 200 years. For continuity-questions this is quite a long time.

. 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.

Yes, it´s practical to argue, but we have no evidence for such a continuity. Thus we should find an other explanation for the existence of the Autun helmet. I offered a possible one.

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).

Yes, but again, it matters how it derived. As an object continuity, for which there seems to be no proof? Or in art, and it was copied from art? In fact the answer to this question could be quite telling again for the general question of the historicizing character of Roman art AND perhaps of Roman equipment. So I think it DOES matter

[Paullus Scipio]

Christian wrote:

I am quite familiar with this relief. See what I wrote about it above. There apparently is no Apulo-Corinthian on it.

...strange, your memory must be a little faulty, for just a few months ago, you were very active in a thread on this subject where Ruben, as he says, referred to the Pergamum reliefs. You also said this with reference to Apulo-Corinthian helmets, the Ahenobarbus relief and the Mars/Tribune figure*:

The only figure which is wearing such a helmet on the Domitius-Ara is the depiction of Mars

and also;

Apulo-Cornithian helmets are later on represented in art of course, (e.g. Domitius-Ara) but that doesn´t tell us whether the helmet was actually worn at that time.

..and when someone pointed a legionary figure who looks as if he might be wearing one...

Not impossible. Could also be an "attic-boeotian" helmet, though.

Back then, in February last, it seems you were prepared to at least acknowledge the possibility of there being two Apulo-Corinthian helmets being depicted, but not now.

" 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"

...and..

The singular find from Autun has, as I said above, some charactristics of the Apulo-Corinthian helmets, but is singular in period, material, and overall form.

The Autun helmet is not so singular or unique.It is matched by an almost contemporay carving of a trophy of arms on a column now in Perigeux museum
which has just such a helmet which Robinson descibed as : "Similar to that from Autun...the front of the skull is carved to represent brows, eyes and nose"

See, that´s the main difference. I suggest to draw no conclusions without evidence, you suggest that it´s O.K.

On the contrary, it is you that has drawn the peculiar conclusion that Apulo-Corinthians did not exist after 300 BC or so, on the basis that we don't have examples from tombs after that date, and I who am simply saying that this is not necessarily so, and that it is possible that they continued, and that there is at least iconographic evidence for this, as well as a further example in the Autun helmet.
As to those tomb finds from Lucania, a similar number contain Italian style Attic type helmets. Finds of these examples too come to an abrupt end around 300 BC, when this type of tomb ceased in Lucania. Applying your logic, do you also say that these Italic Attic style helmets came to an end ? Obviously they did not, and Attic style helmets continued in use. Surely the same applies to Apulo-Corinthians.

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.

Aside from the fact that this sneering sarcasm is against the rules of the Forum ( and you a Moderator too !! :roll: ), I will leave it to Ruben to show the Pergamum example, as he has indicated; you yourself admitted in February that the Ahenobarbus relief might be Apulo-Corinthians - I'll come back to that shortly, and as to Etruscan examples , Connolly illustrates one from an Etruscan tomb painting on P.26 of "Hannibal and the enemies of Rome" ( which incidently has a volute) and sculptural examples too- on p.28 where two warriors fighting both have them on an urn from Chiusi,( also shown on p.100 of "Greece and Rome at War") and another in quilted cuirass on another sculpture has one. A painted sarcophogus in the Florence museum, IV C BC from Tarquinia shows one, and two urns from Chiusi, 2 C BC show reliefs with mounted and foot figures in Apulo-Corinthians. An actual example of an Etrusco-Corinthian helmet 5 C BC in the Dallas Museum, and specifically described as Etruscan is shown below.

Turning now to the Ahenobarbus relief, here are photos that appeared in another thread on this topic. The Mars/Tribune figure is clearly wearing an Apulo-Corinthian, and if we look at the Legionary detail we can see the 'pushed back' shape of the skull, the triangular eye-socket, and the nasal; ergo an Apulo-Corinthian. Much has been made of the volute, but another figure clearly wears a Montefortino, which also has a volute! ( no real ones have such a thing), and in any event the Etruscan tomb-painting illustrated by Connolly also has a volute.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Back then, in February last, it seems you were prepared to at least acknowledge the possibility of there being two Apulo-Corinthian helmets being depicted, but not now.

Correct.

On the contrary, it is you that has drawn the peculiar conclusion that Apulo-Corinthians did not exist after 300 BC or so, on the basis that we don't have examples from tombs after that date, and I who am simply saying that this is not necessarily so, and that it is possible that they continued, and that there is at least iconographic evidence for this, as well as a further example in the Autun helmet.

Well, yes, we can sort of play argument-tennis.
Normally (in logic) it would be so that "it does not exist" does not require an argument, and "it does exist" requires one.

As to those tomb finds from Lucania, a similar number contain Italian style Attic type helmets. Finds of these examples too come to an abrupt end around 300 BC, when this type of tomb ceased in Lucania. Applying your logic, do you also say that these Italic Attic style helmets came to an end ? Obviously they did not, and Attic style helmets continued in use. Surely the same applies to Apulo-Corinthians.

There are examples from the Gulf of Naples, published e.g. in Junkelmann, Das Spiel mit dem Tod.

Aside from the fact that this sneering sarcasm is against the rules of the Forum ( and you a Moderator too !! )

That was not my intention, and if it arrived so, I apologize. I frequently saw that this is sort of a language problem, for which I don´t really find a solution. In German this would appear as "sachlich", mostly: sober.

I will leave it to Ruben to show the Pergamum example, as he has indicated; you yourself admitted in February that the Ahenobarbus relief might be Apulo-Corinthians - I'll come back to that shortly, and as to Etruscan examples , Connolly illustrates one from an Etruscan tomb painting on P.26 of "Hannibal and the enemies of Rome" ( which incidently has a volute) and sculptural examples too- on p.28 where two warriors fighting both have them on an urn from Chiusi,( also shown on p.100 of "Greece and Rome at War") and another in quilted cuirass on another sculpture has one. A painted sarcophogus in the Florence museum, IV C BC from Tarquinia shows one, and two urns from Chiusi, 2 C BC show reliefs with mounted and foot figures in Apulo-Corinthians. An actual example of an Etrusco-Corinthian helmet 5 C BC in the Dallas Museum, and specifically described as Etruscan is shown below.

Yes, I already admitted that there are a few depictions of different quality (some that are not clearly Apulo-Corinthians, and some that very well may be so). However, I do have a problem to simply accept that these do prove that the helmets were still in use at the time at which they were depicted. We also wouldn´t make the same case for a Renaissance statue wearing a Corinthian helmet.

Maybe we can try to de-emotionalise this discussion (we both have a share on the emotional character it has now, I think) and try to come to a sensible result, by trying to not to sit too firm on our opinions.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Below´s the 1988 distrubution map for Apulo-Corinthian helmets´ from archaeological context.

In the following I will provide a very brief summary of the relevant parts of the history of classifying the Apulo-Corinthian Helmets, so that the estimated reader can see why I suggest that the term or classification of "Apulo-Corinthian" is IMO not attributable to an object like the Autun Helmet:

Dintsis classified hellenistic helmet types in 1986. In his work he is speaking of a group of "Pseudo-Corinthian Helmets", which seem to have derived from the actual Corinthian helmets. For these he has a group of iconography-based evidences, but saw the Italian helmets of similar (but clearly in his view not identical to the depicted ones from the eastern mediterranean) helmets from Italy as a southern Italian curiosity, which, as he says, stand out as a special group within the group of "Pseudo-Corinthian Helmets", for which, unfortunately, mostly iconographic evidence seems to exist.

Based on this in 1988 Angelo Bottini set up a new term for this specific group of helmets, and called them, due to where they seem to have been worn, produced, and used, Apulia in southern Italy, "Apulo-Corinthian Helmets".
He states that, I translate: "The Apulo-Corinthian helmet is an italian-developed stylistic change of the corinthian helmet. The latter derived from the Greek Mother-land and was then produced in the italiotic poleis of Great-Greece; from there it spread far into all indigenously settled areas of Southern Italy. As I will show in the following chapter, the Apulo-Corinthian helmets can be attributed to the period between the late 6th c. and a not clearly definable point of time in the 4th c. BCE. They are thus direct sources of local italic metallurgical technology of the classical period." He then goes on to summarize the special characteristics of the helmets and sets up the classification I provided in the link above, and which is commonly used by the scholars that work on "early" Italian military equipment. Finally he provides a catalogue with all the relevant helmets listed.

So, if we should find material evidence for the stylistically quite different "Pseudo-Corinthians" such as depicted on the Pergamon relief and in other sources from the Eastern Mediterranean (a rather complete source catalogue for these - with pictures - can be found in Dintsis), then these still wouldn´t be "Apulo-Corinthians" but "Pseudo-Corinthians", especially if the come with volutes etc. And please, anyone, don´t argue now, that that were semantics, for it isn´t just that.

So, as far as the Autun Helmet is concerned, I think it is actually a more interesting object, and that there might be a bit more to it than just being a very very very, very VERY late Apulo-Corinthian. As I have explained above. I think it is a helmet that was - which is very well within the possibilites as classical archaeology has shown us with countless studies on this matter - copied of a statue or a relief, and is a historicising object - for which, of course, so far no evidence besides stilistical considerations about the face on the helmet and its skull´s overall shape can be found.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

You forget to mention there is no clear distinction between APULO and ETRUSCO corinthian helmets, other than the distinction of where they were found...

But it is obviousely your mind is set and you are not open to any other theory than that of yourself.

M.VIB.M.

[caiusbeerquitius]

I have the impression that you have not even the slightest idea of what you are talking about...
It´s a pity that the "ignore" function is no longer available... *sigh*
In the IMO quite improbable case that I am wrong, and you know what you are talking about, please be so kind as to provide us a helmet typology including

ETRUSCO

-Corinthian helmets, please, please, sugar on top.
(If possible, an already published one, not one just jumping out of your head...)

But it is obviousely your mind is set and you are not open to any other theory than that of yourself.

At least you acknowledge it´s a theory, and not just a hypothesis... :lol:

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Here you are, an Etrusco/Italo/Apulo Corinthian helmet.....

with sugar on top.

[caiusbeerquitius]

That´s pretty much what I expected.... :lol:

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Roman cavalrymen of the time of Polybius as portrayed in a coin of 136 BC. The knights, probably representing the Dioscuri, are shown wearing Hellenistic-style composite cuirasses and carrying long lances but no shields. The coin carries the name of the triumvir monetalis (state moneyer) Cn. Lucretius Trio.


(Looks like Autun style helmet)

Augustus. 27 BC-AD 14. AR Denarius (19mm, 3.29 g). Emerita mint. P. Carisius, legate. Struck circa 25-23 BC. Bare head left / Celt-Iberian helmet facing between dagger to left and bipennis to right. RIC I 7b; BMCRE 282; RSC 405.

M.VIB.M.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Nice coins. No idea what you want to say with these, though. The first is a hellenistic helmet, not a derivate of a Corinthian, the second is on the revers what exactly? A Corinthian? A Pseudo-Corinthian? Autun helmet? Hard to tell from a frontal view... But probably you are right, it has an actual face with mouth, eyes and nose, and not a stylized helmet front, like the Apulo-Corinthians have. So rather an argument FOR my idea than against it.

[Paullus Scipio]

Christian wrote:

For these he has a group of iconography-based evidences, but saw the Italian helmets of similar (but clearly in his view not identical to the depicted ones from the eastern mediterranean) helmets from Italy as a southern Italian curiosity, which, as he says, stand out as a special group within the group of "Pseudo-Corinthian Helmets", for which, unfortunately, mostly iconographic evidence seems to exist.

..This seems an unjustifed conclusion - that artistic licence, and/or lack of skill existed in the iconographic evidence is undoubted. What an item actually looked like and how it appeared in painting and sculpture are two different things. Quite clearly there is no real distinction between the two - 'Pseudo-Corinthian', 'Etrusco-Corinthian' and 'Apulo-Corinthian' are the same thing, and Dintsis is very obviously mistaken to make such a distinction. In reality, these helmets whether found in Apulia, or the rest of Italy, Sicily and the Balkans are clearly of the same type,( see photo earlier post) despite inaccuracies by artists in depicting them.

Bottini's 1988 work has also long since been superceded - see for example the updated list of examples on Dan Diffendale's site, which itself is not complete or up-to-date. Bottini, for some reason, only shows helmets from Southern Italy.

In the IMO quite improbable case that I am wrong, and you know what you are talking about, please be so kind as to provide us a helmet typology including
ETRUSCO
-Corinthian helmets, please, please, sugar on top.

A later study, by J. Paddock "The Bronze Italian Helmet Vol 1 & 2" 1993 (unpublished thesis) University College London (available online - I thoroughly recommend this in-depth study which covers all aspects of Italian bronze helmets, not just 'Apulo Corinthian' - including construction methods) has a similar map, showing provenanced finds, and shows at least 3 from Etruria,a couple from central Italy(Campania) - from the period of Etruscan domination - two from Sicily and some from the Balkans - even if, thanks to Samnite burial practices the majority survive in Apulian and Lucanian tombs c. 500-300 BC. I would re-iterate too that the iconographic evidence for their use in Etruria is very common, and were it not for the accident of the survival of a cluster of unlooted tombs in Apulia and Lucania, one might well conclude the type originated in Etruria ( hence 'Etrusco-Corinthian'). I emphasise once more that the accident of survival does NOT necessarily tell us incontrovertibly where these helmets saw most use, or where they originated.... though the evidence is very strong for Apulia.
BTW, Paddock identifies the Roman Ahenobarbus relief example as 'Apulo-Corinthian'. D

Clearly, Henk has a clearer grasp of this than your view.....

You forget to mention there is no clear distinction between APULO and ETRUSCO corinthian helmets, other than the distinction of where they were found...

Christian wrote:

Nice coins. No idea what you want to say with these, though. The first is a hellenistic helmet, not a derivate of a Corinthian, the second is on the revers what exactly? A Corinthian? A Pseudo-Corinthian? Autun helmet? Hard to tell from a frontal view... But probably you are right, it has an actual face with mouth, eyes and nose, and not a stylized helmet front, like the Apulo-Corinthians have. So rather an argument FOR my idea than against it.

The first, while highly stylised, is to my eyes, of 'Apulo-Corinthian' style - notice the tilted back skull, the upraised visor, what could be eyebrows, eyes and nasal etc, it does not resemble too closely any Hellenistic type I know of.....and in any event, is it more likely the Romans would depict a foreign Eastern hellenistic helmet on a God/Goddess, or an indigenous one going back to their own antiquity ? There are many Roman coins like this.

And I would say you are correct that the actual face on the other coin brings it closer - i.e. a link - to the 'Autun' type. Perhaps we should be calling this type 'Apulo-Corinthian type F or G' ( to allow for a missing link or two) :wink: :wink:

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

and Christian:

Both coins are from a later date than 300 BC, in which according to your earlier post the use of helmets of this type stopped ......... and there are many more of these coins found.

M.VIB.M.

[Magnus]

Paul, with respect to this discussion, I'd say some of your comments are just as sarcastic and inflammatory. Part of the problem too is the fact that you would argue any point with anyone regardless of evidence presented. But that is nothing new...

I fail to see where this thread is going at this point, other than circles.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul, with respect to this discussion, I'd say some of your comments are just as sarcastic and inflammatory

Do you really think so? I have been back over my posts and I cannot see where I have said anything inflammatory, certainly not of the like of accusing someone of "not knowing what they were talking about" or wished for an 'ignore' button. Perhaps you might care to give me examples of what you mean in a PM.....

Part of the problem too is the fact that you would argue any point with anyone regardless of evidence presented. But that is nothing new...

That is patently untrue....and a gratuitous insult to boot :evil: ....anyone who reads my posts knows I don't put forward a point of view without backing it up with evidence AND giving references, which is more than most - and something you yourself were lamenting on another thread. Moderators should not be throwing insults around.....

I fail to see where this thread is going at this point, other than circles.

....it is not going in circles. Christian asked for further evidence regarding 'Etrusco-Corinthian' helmets, and in my last post I have given him fresh evidence. Hardly going in circles, and the reference I gave is very good one. I recommend that anyone interested in the subject download and read it. Paddock's thesis is very comprehensive as I said.

[Paullus Scipio]

Henk wrote:

Both coins are from a later date than 300 BC, in which according to your earlier post the use of helmets of this type stopped ......... and there are many more of these coins found.

..Coins with Roma wearing an Apulo-Corinthian helmet are among the earliest Roman coins (269 BC), around the time the Lucanian and Apulian tomb record ceases. Roma also appears in an Attic type helmet. By 170 BC, both Attic and Apulo-Corinthian types have acquired the little wings which are a distinctive South Italian ( not Hellenistic ) feature. Coins with clear Apulo-Corinthians, with and without wings are continuous through the Punic Wars - Scipio Africanus is portrayed on a coin wearing one, and on down to the Principate when Imperial portraits take over.The God Mars is also frequently shown on coins in one.
Unsurprisingly, they appear regularly on South Italian coins all through the 3 rd century ( after the tomb sequence ends), as do other helmet types.

All of which - the regular appearance in iconography and on coins, the spread of these helmets throughout Italy and beyond to Sicily and the Balkans, makes it hard to argue that they simply 'disappeared' overnight around 300 BC when the Apulian/Lucanian tombs cease.