Brows of pseudo corinthian origin?

[caiusbeerquitius]

A later study, by J. Paddock "The Bronze Italian Helmet Vol 1 & 2" 1993 (unpublished thesis) University College London (available online - I thoroughly recommend this in-depth study which covers all aspects of Italian bronze helmets, not just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'.

O.K., now having read Paddock´s thesis, I´d like to comment on what you wrote.

On p.79-80 he gives a clear description of the characteristics of the Apulo-Corinthian helmets. Certainly the Autun helmet does not fit into this definition.

In general we have to agree to disagree upon the interpretation of Roman art. Where you say it doesn´t have an archaizing character, i.e. the Apulo-Corinthian helmets depicted in art were actually used at the time where they were depicted, even when there is no other material evidence, I say that the interpretation of display of weapons in Roman iconography must be made with much more caution and method. We also see "normal" Corinthians in Roman art, noone would argue that they were used at the time of Augustus, though, I think. So:
Without a proper critical apparatus applied to them I refuse to accept the Roman iconography as a valid source for the question we discuss. If relevant method is applied and the sources are critically examined, I´d of course accept any doubtless proofs.

I have no problem in seeing the Apulo-Corinthians used for a while after the end of the south-Italian gift-burials, especially I can see them used in the second Punic war, where old gear was taken from the houses and used again etc.
But certainly not for a period of 300 years, at least without material evidence.

Paddock has no helmet type named the "Etrusco-Corinthian" helmet. At least I couldn´t find one. Instead he says on p.86:

Of the thirty-eight helmet where a more exact location is available, ninety percent come from Italy, south of a line drawn between Naples and Foggia. From their distribution in this area, it is obvious that the origins of the Apulo-Corinthian helmet are without doubt to be found in Magna Graecia, but more specifically in northern and central Apulia

And, p.88:

Outside Apulia the distribution is more sporadic, the two helmets from Sicily (Nos. 1 and 3. ), which are both of type I and therefore
in early in the sequence possibly belonged to mercenaries serving there. This would seem to agree with other evidence for Italian mercenaries at this period as attested by finds of Italic defensive equipment found on Corsica and in North Africa

plus

The remaining five provenanced examples fall well beyond the area of Apulian influence. They consist of two helmets from Campania and three fron Etruria. The two helmets from Campania (Nos, 25 and 50. )
come from Naples and Capua respectively and are of types III and V. This gives them a date range of between the 5th and the 4th centuries
B. C. i.e. the period of Etruscan domination. The three remaining helmets (Nos. 53,55 and 56. ) come from Etruria, two have more accurate
provenances and come respectively from Chiusi and Vulci.
Although Stary (1982,5.) has questioned the provenance of at least
one of these three Etruscan finds, he presents little evidence to
prove his case and an Etruscan context is just as likely since these items
could easily have reached Etruria by way of trade and is a reasonable
explanation given their commonplace depiction in Etruscan and Roman art from the 4th to the Ist centuries B.C.

By way of trade. No "ETRUSCO"-Corinthians.

He also is using basically the same typology as Bottini established, just adds two more categories. p. 91-92.

As far as I´m concerned, this debate is closed, unless you can bring any evidence for a continuity in the use of the Apulo-Corinthian which is NOT possibly artistic convention / historicized display and methodological correctly discussed as such and in its context.

[caiusbeerquitius]

I forgot:

Bottini, for some reason, only shows helmets from Southern Italy.

No he doesn´t. Clearly you didn´t care to look at Bottini´s map I provided above. Unless you regard Athens, Krsko, Vulci and Friuli as southern Italy. :wink:

[Paullus Scipio]

After reading your last post, it was clear to me that your views, as on previous occasions, tend toward 'narrow views' and seemingly not open to persuasion, and therefore no point in responding ( your declaration that the debate is over). However, I’ve changed my mind because this topic does give a good example of why we should consider ALL our sources, archaeology, iconography and literature in trying to understand matters such as this one, and this may be of use to the general reader of our forum. (though perhaps only you and I are still reading this thread ! :wink: )

The first reason is that if we exclude any of them, or seek to rely on only one aspect, we are often simply left with so little evidence as to not be meaningful. A holistic approach is essential. For a fuller explanation of some of the reasons why, I recommend pp.20- 47 of Bishop and Coulston’s “Roman Military Equipment” Batsford, London 1993 ISBN 0 7134 6637 5.

You seem to believe that archaeological evidence is somehow more reliable than iconographic. Every student of this subject knows the problems associated with iconography, but I am surprised that you seem to think archaeology has any fewer problems, and I’ll illustrate some of the problems through the subject of what were previously called ‘Italo-Corinthian’ or ‘Etrusco-Corinthian’ helmets, but which have now come to be called ‘Apulo-Corinthian’. ( see next post)

Christian wrote:
O.K., now having read Paddock´s thesis, I´d like to comment on what you wrote.

Unfortunately, you chose to “cherry pick” items to refer to out of context….

On p.79-80 he gives a clear description of the characteristics of the Apulo-Corinthian helmets. Certainly the Autun helmet does not fit into this definition..

You forgot to mention the reason why. Paddock specifically excludes “parade helmets” as being outside the scope of his study (P.38 ), and his definition is aimed solely at ‘battleworthy’ examples. Clearly he regards the Autun helmet as a “parade” item, though others do not.

In general we have to agree to disagree upon the interpretation of Roman art. Where you say it doesn´t have an archaizing character…..

I have never said this! Of course I agree with you that much Roman Art was deliberately ‘archaised’ e.g. a God or Hero deliberately depicted in what the artist thought of as ‘ancient’ armour, but equally much was intended to be ‘contemporary’ and even portraiture.

…. i.e. the Apulo-Corinthian helmets depicted in art were actually used at the time where they were depicted, even when there is no other material evidence, I say that the interpretation of display of weapons in Roman iconography must be made with much more caution and method….

I agree with you here, most certainly...but so must ‘material’ evidence as we shall see post. I would contend that ALL evidence must be critically considered.

…. We also see "normal" Corinthians in Roman art, no-one would argue that they were used at the time of Augustus, though, I think

Again, I agree with you........And where we do there is a reason for it e.g. a copy of earlier Greek or Hellenistic Art, or a deliberate association with the past for propaganda reasons of an Emperor. This of course does not apply where a subject such as an ordinary legionary soldier is being shown – such as on the ‘Ahenobarbus’ frieze.

So:
Without a proper critical apparatus applied to them I refuse to accept the Roman iconography as a valid source for the question we discuss. If relevant method is applied and the sources are critically examined, I´d of course accept any doubtless proofs.

Here is where we differ. You take a somewhat 'narrow' approach and seek certainties ("doubtless proofs") and I adopt a 'broader' approach, considering all sources critically, and then speaking of possibilities and probabilities, because very little is certain.The application of some artificial ‘critical apparatus’ is neither here nor there. Nor are artificial 'classifications’ of equipment into neat compartments or styles, because they frequently overlap, especially in helmets e.g. helmets that have characteristics of both ‘Boeotian’ and ‘Attic’ styles, or ‘Montefortino’ and ‘Coolus’ types, Not to mention that different commentators use different 'critical apparatus' e.g. names ( 'Apulo-Corinthian', 'Etrusco-Corinthian' 'Italo-Corinthian') or typologies ( Paddock and Bottini use different criteria for example)

If you insist on ‘doubtless proofs’, then best give up all study of the past. Our knowledge – from all fields – is at best fragmentary and I believe, as do most other scholars, that we can only ever talk of possibilities and probabilities.

Don’t you think it significant that ALL credible and serious scholars e.g Russell-Robinson, Connolly, Bishop and Coulston and Paddock and Bottini being considered here, examine ALL sources of evidence – archaeological, iconographic and literary ?? This method is universal, including German scholars such as Kunze, Ulbert and Schramm, or French such as Coussin ( though more modern scholars, with the advance of knowledge are best at this – and no doubt future knowledge will of course change many presently held views.)

I have no problem in seeing the Apulo-Corinthians used for a while after the end of the south-Italian gift-burials, especially I can see them used in the second Punic war, where old gear was taken from the houses and used again etc.
But certainly not for a period of 300 years, at least without material evidence.
A fair point, but clearly their use 'faded' over time, until we see their last vestige in the late 1 C BC with their depiction on the column in the Perigeux museum and the Autun helmet, as per Russell-Robinson ( who calls them 'Etruro-Corinthian' ).
That appears to be a change to your earlier view that:

and came out of use certainly not later than the 3rd c. BC.

i.e. not used after 300 BC, since you now allow their use in the Punic Wars to 202 BC.
I guess this means you noticed that one of Paddock’s Type 2 helmets (5-4 C ) came from a 4-3 C grave i.e. c. 300 BC– but if you are prepared to allow their use 100 years after this tomb find with little or no evidence for use c. 200 BC, then why not 200 years, evidenced by the Ahenobarbus frieze and Etruscan sculpture?
After all, Paddock does:

”However there is plenty of pictorial evidence depicting their use as late as 100 B.C. ( e.g. the Ahenobarbus relief” ( p.105)

- and also references elsewhere to iconographic evidence.

Paddock has no helmet type named the "Etrusco-Corinthian" helmet. At least I couldn´t find one.....

Did you not read his introduction where he discusses the fact that this type has had many names,?

Instead he says on p.86 : Of the thirty-eight helmet where a more exact location is available, ninety percent come from Italy, south of a line drawn between Naples and Foggia. From their distribution in this area, it is obvious that the origins of the Apulo-Corinthian helmet are without doubt to be found in Magna Graecia, but more specifically in northern and central Apulia

….and this is the reason most scholars now use the term “Apulo-Corinthian”….

And, p.88:
Outside Apulia the distribution is more sporadic, the two helmets from Sicily (Nos. 1 and 3 ), which are both of type I and therefore
in early in the sequence possibly belonged to mercenaries serving there. This would seem to agree with other evidence for Italian mercenaries at this period as attested by finds of Italic defensive equipment found on Corsica and in North Africa

plus
The remaining five provenanced examples fall well beyond the area of Apulian influence. They consist of two helmets from Campania and three fron Etruria. The two helmets from Campania (Nos, 25 and 50. )
come from Naples and Capua respectively and are of types III and V. This gives them a date range of between the 5th and the 4th centuries
B. C. i.e. the period of Etruscan domination. The three remaining helmets (Nos. 53,55 and 56. ) come from Etruria, two have more accurate
provenances and come respectively from Chiusi and Vulci.
Although Stary (1982,5.) has questioned the provenance of at least
one of these three Etruscan finds, he presents little evidence to
prove his case and an Etruscan context is just as likely since these items
could easily have reached Etruria by way of trade and is a reasonable
explanation given their commonplace depiction in Etruscan and Roman art from the 4th to the Ist centuries B.C.

By way of trade. No "ETRUSCO"-Corinthians.

He is simply using this as one example of why we have no reason to doubt the Etruscan provenance, as Stary does, for even if they were not made in Etruria, then they could have “easily reached Etruria by trade ...” He is not ruling out their being made there, nor, because we now accept that the type originated in Apulia, hence its new name, does it mean that helmets of this type could not have been made in Etruria, where they appear in iconography more than anywhere else. ( which is why at one time they were referred to as “Etrusco-Corinthian “ ), not to mention that in addition to those definitely from Etruria there are several more ( at least three) that are probably from there...

He also is using basically the same typology as Bottini established, just adds two more categories. p. 91-92.

You may have only superficially browsed Paddock – probably only the Apulo-Corinthian section too, not the full 1,000 pages ! ( understandably! )
I recommend a more thorough study - it has much to offer on the subject generally.
In fact Paddock’s typology is NOT Bottini’s “just adding two more” – it is completely different ! Paddock’s types 2 &3 partially cover Bottini’s ‘B’, type 4 overlaps “B’ & ‘C’, type 5 overlaps ‘B’ & ‘C’ and so on.

As far as I´m concerned, this debate is closed, unless you can bring any evidence for a continuity in the use of the Apulo-Corinthian which is NOT possibly artistic convention / historicized display and methodological correctly discussed as such and in its context.

As I said earlier, it seems illogical to accept use in the “second Punic war” with little or no evidence, and yet reject use down to 100 BC – for which there is the Ahenobarbus relief, accepted by all the best scholars of the subject including Paddock, not to mention all the many Etruscan sculptures and paintings down to the 1st C BC.

[Paullus Scipio]

In this post, I will try to give some of the reasons why archaeology is just as fraught with difficulties as iconography when it comes to what Christian refers to as ‘doubtless proofs’, using the study of ‘Apulo-Corinthian’ helmets, which is a subject where the evidence is seemingly plentiful. Let me begin with a quote from another thread from someone with considerable knowledge of archaeology and archaeologists…

“I mean no offense! But archaeologists from the 1850s to THE PRESENT DAY have lied about artifacts, lied about sites, failed to adequately survey, failed to document, failed to dig, dug in the wrong season--mis-tagged, deliberately or by genuine error. They sell artifacts to finance digs, they tag items from their own illegal holes to their legitimate sites...... I've seldom known a senior archaeologist who hasn't admitted to one of these behaviors. The recent discovery of the mis-cataloging of, as I understand it, the entire collection of early textiles at Anne Arbor (Univ. of Mich) shows how easily this can happen with the kind of disastrous consequence for which art dealers are often blamed……..I note the suggestion that items in private collections are suspect; it amuses me, as my friends with large private collections suggest that many helmets in museums are either forgeries or have more putty to them than bronze.”

These things go back to the origins of what one may hesitate to call a ‘science’, or is at best a ‘science in its infancy’ whose origins until sixty or seventy years ago were little more than ‘treasure hunting’ or ‘tomb robbing’. This in turn means that most of our present artifacts have little or no ‘provenance’ or context, which in turn means dating becomes problematic. ( I won’t even comment on the controversy that makes much of Egyptology’s dating suspect).

Taking the two studies of ‘Apulo-Corinthian’ helmets mentioned in this thread as an illustration of the problems besetting even the best studies – Paddock’s and Bottini’s - Paddock discusses 59 helmets, Bottini discusses some 86, with a further 30 or so added/updated by Dan Diffendale ( a member of RAT, incidently). The lists overlap to a great degree, but there are many in each list that are not in the other.

Of Paddock’s 59 helmets, only 38 have their place of origin accurately located. Of these, no less than 11 come from a single necropolis at Melfi in Apulia…..which influences our thinking, but may be just an accident of survival ( though this becomes less likely as more are found). Many others are labelled ’South Italy’ but comparison with Bottini shows that this is an assumption, based on the fact that we now believe, because of the many which come from Apulian tombs, that this is indeed their origin. ( see the 'circular' flawed logic here?). Previously the majority were known from Etruscan examples and the many Etruscan Iconographic depictions in paintings and sculpture, hence the name ‘Etrusco-Corinthian'. In fact many now labelled ‘South Italy’ are in fact ‘unknown’ – and of course there are dozens, if not hundreds more, outside these studies, in auction catalogues – you can find them for sale right now – which are labelled ‘South Italy’ but are in fact ‘unknown’ thanks to the fact that have been stolen from tombs etc ( where they are not outright forgeries). Some given an origin in one study are labelled ‘unknown’ or ‘South Italy’ in another. Some are definitely known to come from Etruria. Others, such as the three in Milan are labelled ‘unknown’, but are most probably Etruscan. The classic is the example from Dallas whose photo I posted earlier. Paddock says ‘South Italy’ ( an assumption), Bottini says ‘unknown’, and the Dallas Museum says ‘Etruscan’ !

The point is, we just don’t know where the vast majority of genuine helmets ( ignoring fakes) come from, nor even how many there are extant ( At a guess, somewhere between 150 and 250? More?)
Essentially, this majority of ‘unknown’ helmets could come from anywhere in Italy….or beyond….though we might suspect that most are ‘South Italian’.BTW, this makes it the second most common Italian helmet to survive, after 'Montefortinos' [ 150 in Paddock's study and well over 200 in total at a guess....], with both being found all over Italy and beyond. The 'Montefortino' is of northern, celtic origin and spreads south. The 'Apulo-Corinthian' is of southern, Apulian, origin and spread north, one example at least, of probable Etruscan origin, being found in a celtic grave, IIRC. Both helmets, plus others, were virtually certainly in use by Rome.


Naturally, if you don’t know where a helmet comes from, you can’t tell who made it, or where, or when, which leads us to dating.. In Paddock’s study, only 18 can be dated, and many of these are not exact dates, but simply assumptions again, based on style/typology (let me remind readers that Bottini and Paddock use similar but different typologies, and that dating of types using either ‘overlaps’ i.e. different types existed at the same time….

Paddock cautiously gives their origin as ‘late 6 C’ i.e. c.520 BC or later, however the earliest in his ‘Type 1’ study is ‘early 5 C’ i.e. 499- 470 BC or so. The other dated example ( of his 14 ‘Type 1’s) is more accurately dated to 425-400 BC. Of 5 ‘Type 2’s’ only one is dated – to 350-300 BC. Of 13 ‘Type 3’s’ one is the earliest of all, “end of 6 C – 5 C” i.e. somewhere between 520 – 470 BC or so, 3 are ‘early 5 C’, one is 500-450 BC ( ‘early 5 C’ really).

As can be seen, most are only dated to within a hundred, or fifty, years. I must emphasise that Paddock rightly calls these SUGGESTED dates.

And what are we to make of one example of a helmet “5-4 C B.C.”, but which turns up in a grave containing other goods dated 3 C B.C. ?? Do we call it “5-4 C BC “, because on stylistic grounds it belongs to that date, or “3 C BC” because that was when it was in use and buried? If both dates are correct, the helmet stayed in use for around a hundred years, perhaps a treasured family heirloom.

Anyway, I think readers take my point – archaeology is so vague it often can’t tell us where or when a helmet comes from, or who made it, or why. ( some archaeologists/Armour scholars have labelled ‘Apulo-Corinthians as ‘Parade’ or ‘made for funerals’ because they obviously couldn’t be pulled down over the face). Other factors as to what does or doesn’t survive in any given location are the soil conditions ( usually organic stuff or iron does not survive, where bronze will), and the cultural beliefs of the society concerned ( inhumation or cremation etc; burying artefacts in tombs or not – this is why we have ‘Apulian’ and ‘Etruscan’ examples from tombs, but no Roman ones, even though Romans appear in iconography wearing them ! ). Then there are factors such as funds for digs – many places are untouched as yet ( except by tomb robbers, hence the archaeological records are very fragmentary), not to mention structural integrity, or ‘recycling’ in ancient times – helmets are thus well-represented, but mail ‘lorica aren’t.

If 'archaeology' is a science at all it is a “fuzzy” one based on vague, sometimes contradictory data. It has just as many problems as iconography. Which is why any Armour Scholar of repute looks at ALL sources ( see previous post for examples) – archaeology, iconography and literature and anything else, such as surviving coins too. Even then there are few, if any, of Christian’s “doubtless proofs” which is why the subject is always spoken of as ‘possibilities’ and ‘probabilities’, as I have done in this and other threads…..

….And to return to the beginning, at least the iconography does not “lie”, nor is it as subject to ‘fakes’ as archaeological artefacts, ( with one or two notable exceptions – the most famous being the “Large Etruscan Warrior” statues – three of them acquired between 1915 and 1921 by the New York Met Museum that were up to 6 ft 8 in /2 M tall, and weighed up to 800 lbs/ 360 Kg. They became the pride of the Met’s Etruscan collection….until they were revealed as fakes 40 years later when one of the forgers confessed, and as proof produced a ‘missing’ part. Since no modern kiln was big enough, the forgers had assembled the giant terracotta from ‘broken parts’…..) hock: hock:

[caiusbeerquitius]

Without a proper critical apparatus applied to them I refuse to accept the Roman iconography as a valid source for the question we discuss. If relevant method is applied and the sources are critically examined, I´d of course accept any doubtless proofs.

You could have saved yourself a lot of time if you had not taken my comment about "doubtless proof" out of context. This is what I wrote:

Without a proper critical apparatus applied to them I refuse to accept the Roman iconography as a valid source for the question we discuss. If relevant method is applied and the sources are critically examined, I´d of course accept any doubtless proofs.

It is about correctly applied method, not about certainty. "doubtless" refers to the method. :roll: Of course I am aware of the nature of historical discourse.
Your second post above shows that you simply don´t seem to understand this. Of course all sources should be taken into account. But when they are used to establish an argument they first must be subject to the correct methodology and interpretetd - like any text that is used for the same reasons. As I said, regarding pictorial evidence as photorealistic is about as foolish as regarding every word written by an ancient author as the truth.

You forgot to mention the reason why. Paddock specifically excludes “parade helmets” as being outside the scope of his study (P.38 ), and his definition is aimed solely at ‘battleworthy’ examples. Clearly he regards the Autun helmet as a “parade” item, though others do not

Could you hint me to where he considers the Autun helmet and dismisses it, so that you can support your statment?
That´s rethorical, of course, I know you can´t.

or a deliberate association with the past for propaganda reasons of an Emperor. This of course does not apply where a subject such as an ordinary legionary soldier is being shown – such as on the ‘Ahenobarbus’ frieze.

Why not? We have loads of pictures of regular soldieres from Pompeii where exactly this is the case.

He is not ruling out their being made there

He´s also NOT ruling out that they were made in Tenochtitlan. Or on the moon. The spectrum gets ever larger...

Paddock’s types 2 &3 partially cover Bottini’s ‘B’, type 4 overlaps “B’ & ‘C’, type 5 overlaps ‘B’ & ‘C’ and so on.

That´s why I said "Basically". I wonder how you can judge from Australia what I do here in my study room and question my ability to read 1000 pages.

As I said earlier, it seems illogical to accept use in the “second Punic war” with little or no evidence, and yet reject use down to 100 BC – for which there is the Ahenobarbus relief, accepted by all the best scholars of the subject including Paddock, not to mention all the many Etruscan sculptures and paintings down to the 1st C BC.

Jeeez. I said why I would accept the 2nd punic war. But I also said in which situation of it.
Because many scholars agree that the Domitius ara depicts Apulo-Corinthians it doesn´t make this assumption correct, sorry. If Bottini accepts it, I wonder why he didn´t wonder that his actual Apulo-Corinthians don´t have volutes...

So, as I said, the discussion is over for me. I cannot do anything but repeat what I said above already. Of course, if need be, I can do that several times, until it is understood.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

“It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult.”

SENECA

[caiusbeerquitius]

"The lights are on in the basement"
An anonymous fourth-grader to his teacher.

[caiusbeerquitius]

https://www.academia.edu/11958190/The_Ap...ished_2013

=)