Late Roman Attic helmets

[AMELIANVS]

Similar kind of helmet is shown on early 7th century David plates.Helmets are covered by some textile cover like Persian used to do long time before Romans adopted it:

[attachment=7064]8425158876_fb4d335d6c_o_2013-04-26.jpg[/attachment]

This covering is probably depicted also on Goliath fresco from Bawit:

[attachment=7065]DavidvsGoliathBawit6-7thcent.jpg[/attachment]

And yeat another late antique pyxis with seemingly Carolingian helmet form:

[AMELIANVS]

Very beautiful are illumination from the 9th century Stuttgarter Bibelpsalter.At first sight, it contains a number of realistic details who are often confirmed even archaeologically:

[attachment=7067]StuttgarterBibelpsalter.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=7068]921-36.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=7069]921-17_gallery.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=7070]921-25.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=7071]StuttgartPsalter21v.jpg[/attachment]

[AMELIANVS]

A good glimpse of how much realistic such details can sometimes and in some illuminations be,when compared to actual findings:

[attachment=7072]VivianBibleTours9.stolet.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=7073]DuesmindetreasureTheNationalMuseumofDenmark.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=7074]Cim223v.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=7075]Duesminde-treasure.jpg[/attachment]

[koechlyruestow]

Robert Vermaat wrote:

one of the difficulties of the artist was to show as much of the face of the men as possible. Meaning that nasals, closed cheekplates etc were 'dropped' and that perspective forced the artist to portray something that did not resemble an actually existing helmet.

Nathan Ross wrote:

But do we know this? Or is it just an assumption?

Nathan, we know that it happened. That is why depictions of Roman soldiers of a hundred, or even fifty years ago look so outdated, "Asterix&Obelix"-like: what had seemed like Attic helmets with tiny, chin-strap cheek-plates turned out to be Weisenau helmets with fairly huge cheek-plates, etc.

Robert Vermaat wrote:

Perhaps artists drew from earlier examples... the so-called 'Attic helmet' may not have been a reality but a product of artistic licence.

Nathan Ross wrote:

Perhaps - if there were any earlier examples.

Why yes, the obvious precursors of all these types of helmets are the Hellenistic helmets of the Phrygian, Pilos, Beoetian and Apulian-Corinthian types. This even led to the assumption that these helmets were still used well into the Middle Ages (Ortwin Gamber).

But did they? Time will tell. Until then, I stick to what has been found, Byzantine conical kettle-hats, but they are of a much later date.

[Diocle]

May I remeber you dear friends, that the term 'Artistic convention' is abused?

The term has some meaning if it's immediatley followed by a good presentation of the Artistic languages of the area to which belongs the object.

We cannot use the term 'Artistic convention' to indicate the Middle East and Greece, the Gallic provinces and Egypt, the the figurative cultures and languages were profoundly different expecially from the III century onward! Look these two sculptures, they belong to the same period and to the same area, but they seem coming from two different worlds! Two different figurative languages, two different 'Artistic conventions' are working here:





Also the use of the representation of the space, called 'perspective' and today 3D, is an Invention of the Italian Renaissance, other artistic civilizations used different methods to represent the volume of the objects, the visual representation of the perspective of an object changes during the historical time and it's is rooted in the figurative culture of the area to which belong the object and the artist.
Being the 'perspective a symbolic form', it cannot be used to criticize the real shape of an object.

We should be also very cautios comparing Byzantine and Carolingian arrtistic images between them, and we should be also very cautious comparing artistic creations belonging to the Roman Late Antiquity with artistic works belonging to the Byzantine medieval iconographic culture.

Believe me: The term 'artistic convention' opens the gates on an universe of boundless complexity, it should be better being very, very, very cautious handling the expression 'Artistic convention'.....

[Robert Vermaat]

May I remeber you dear friends, that the term 'Artistic convention' is abused?

I think the term we're looking for is 'artistic license'. Artists distorting reality to show what they want to show us.

[M. Demetrius]

I'm not an art history or interpretation expert, but I though "convention" had to do with matters of style such all the people in the cavalry vs infantry below) are looking straight ahead rather than at the person they are spearing. Egyptian torsos and arms in impossible positions would be another example.

"License" (poetic or artistic) is steering the thinking of the observer by distorting the image. Like all "enemies" looking mean or foolish or brutish, while the "good guys" are handsome and pleasing. War propaganda posters are a good example of "artistic license".

I could be completely incorrect, though. Wouldn't be the first time. English is a most confusing language, and the more I know about it, the more I'm willing to say that.



[sub]English is my second language. Cooing, gurgling and baby talk was my first.[/sub]

[M. Demetrius]

@Diocle: There is also, besides the style issue, the possibility that the marble head's sculptor was just a better craftsman than the second sculpture. The proportions and details are clearly in favor of the more objective (as opposed to subjective) marble bust.

If I tried to add something to that group, myself being not very artistic and totally untrained, I'd produce a poor-quality sculpture, but it wouldn't be because I didn't try to make a Michelangelo style--just that I simply was unable to produce that level of artistic piece. It wouldn't have anything to do with my trying to change the viewer's opinion of the subject.

Consider an Aphrodite sculpture from classical Greece with a Neolithic pottery fertility goddess artifact. Both artist had the idea to make a solid representation of the goddess, but one is considered great art, and the other not so much. But in their particular environment, both would have had similar effect to those viewing the art.

[koechlyruestow]

There is a discussion on this in Evelyn Waugh's biography of the mother of Constantine the Great, in which the emperor is exaspearated by the theoretical babbling of the artists who cannot/will not make him a decent victory arch, until he finally decides to loot a principate period arch instead.

[Diocle]

May I remeber you dear friends, that the term 'Artistic convention' is abused?

I think the term we're looking for is 'artistic license'. Artists distorting reality to show what they want to show us.

In this case I have to disagree, the artists here are not distorting but they are using their own artistic language, as to say: The artist is not voluntary distorting the images but he do what he can with the artistic culture of the place in which he lives and of the time of which he is part.

The term 'Artistic convention' actually is right, but it's only abused; how many times have I read it when something was not perfectly coincident with the coomon views about the matter?...and frequently I saw many archeologists and historians telling us: 'Oppps! Sorry! It was true1 it wasn't an artistic convention!....Ooops! Mycene did really exists! Sorry again!' :whistle:


@Demetrius: Your interpretation is possible, but too many are the cases of two artistic languages or linguistic conventions that coexists during the III century.
The Roman Art and Architecture of the III century is so technically complex and of so perfect quality that someone has compared this age to the Broque of the XVII century!

IMHO here we can see two different languages, one the classic Hellenistic Greek-Roman language, the other a more 'Barbarised' language, in which the realism left place to a more 'Expressionist' and 'Barbaric' artistic language.

The Late Romans probably slowly had started to love the strong expressionism of the Brabaric art, the poor Caracalla was in the mood of his time! :grin:

Now let me show here few pics: The Tetrarch (new language), and...Maxentius in two versions: the first the classic Hellenistic language and the other....the new 'Expressionism' of the Late III century, look:

[Diocle]

May I remeber you dear friends, that the term 'Artistic convention' is abused?

I think the term we're looking for is 'artistic license'. Artists distorting reality to show what they want to show us.

In this case I have to disagree, the artists here are not distorting the reality, but they are using their own artistic language, as to say: The artist is not voluntary distorting the images but he does what he can with the artistic culture of the place in which he lives and of the time of which he is part.

The term 'Artistic convention' actually is right, but it's only abused; how many times have I read it when something was not perfectly coincident with the coomon views about the matter?...and frequently I saw many archeologists and historians telling us: 'Oppps! Sorry! We were wrong: it wasn't an artistic convention!"...."Ooops! Mycene did really exists! Sorry again!" :whistle:


@Demetrius: Your interpretation is possible, but too many are the cases of two artistic languages or linguistic conventions that coexists during the III century.
The Roman Art and Architecture of the III century is so technically complex and of so perfect quality that someone has compared this age to the Broque of the XVII century!

IMHO here we can see two different languages, one is the classic Hellenistic Greek-Roman language, the other is a more 'Barbarised' language, in which the naturalism and the realism left place to a more 'Expressionist' and 'Barbaric' artistic language.

The Late Romans probably slowly had started to love the strong expressionism of the Brabaric art, the poor Caracalla was in the mood of his time! :grin:

Now let me show here few pics: The Tetrarchs (new language)I don't think that Diocletianus might use the wrong artist to represent the Tetrachy, and then...Maxentius in two versions: the first is the classic Hellenistic language and the other....the new 'Expressionism' of the Late III century, look:







..Beware the Artistic languages are really languages: you can choose what you like to use, the language most suitable for your objectives and values.

The use of the expression 'Artistic convention' is dangerous and intriguing, and it needs a deep knowledge about the matter, but the strange thing is this one: Abitually when I read the expression 'artistic convention' I say: 'Oh well! finally we can speak of Art!!'...but insted nothing happens....actually the expression is used, as an old two handed Anglosaxon axe, to behead the discussion about unorthodox Roman artistic creations and nothing more.


Sorry for my English! Yes because, I'm not only a horrid English writer but I'm also a little dyslexic! So..... I'll try to contain my posts!

[Nathan Ross]

Getting back to the 'attic' type helmet... Just to further confuse the idea of a limited chronology for these things, here's what looks very much like the very same helmet, as it appears on the tombstone of T. Flavius Mikkalus (1st-2nd C AD):

[attachment=7093]Miccalus.jpg[/attachment]

Compare this to the helmets worn by the attacking troops on the Arch of Constantine...

True depiction, or 'artistic license'...? :errr:

[koechlyruestow]

Such helmets probably did exist long after they had been discarded by the military, instead being used for festivities, parades, theatre preformances and the like (see for instance the Apulian-Corinthian parade helmet from Autun, 1st century CE, that certainly had never seen a battlefield) .
In the 1st century CE, the Apulian-Corinthian / Etruro-Corinthian / pseudo-Corinthian helmet was very popular in Pompeian mural painting:

[attachment=7094]marsvenus.jpg[/attachment]

Mars playing hanky-panky with Venus.

[attachment=7095]soldier.jpg[/attachment]

Soldier stoically undergoing surgery.
Perhaps, like the gypsum casts seen in 19th century art schools, any artist had some models of ancient arms and armour for use in military scenes

[Nathan Ross]

Perhaps, like the gypsum casts seen in 19th century art schools, any artist had some models of ancient arms and armour for use in military scenes

Quite possibly. But I think this tends to be assumed rather too often. The two scenes above are quite interesting - the first is straightforward mythology/religion: Mars is not intended to look like a 'real' soldier, and his helmet is suitably old-fashioned. The second, I think, show the wounded Aeneas, so again it's mythology. The equipment and dress, though, looks a lot more detailed and less generic - the figure on the right appears to be wearing either a Persian cap or some kind of helmet padding! Perhaps it's stuff from the artist's dressing-up box, but it could well be an attempt at accuracy. Of what, however, is another question..

In the case of some of the tombstone reliefs show above in the thread, I suspect there's less likelihood of merely generic depiction. Look at the armour of the two soldiers in the Mikkalus relief - the artist has gone to some trouble to carve those distinctive belts, and the shape of the two different helmets (although why the soldier on the left is holding another identical helmet I can't decide - unless he's about to hand it to the mounted Mikkalus?)

[koechlyruestow]

But do you not think that those cuirasses had long since been abandoned as functional military gear, unless perhaps by a general? Just like, in the 1st century CE, the Apulian-Corinthian helmet had been out of military use for at least 3 centuries?

We all agree we are speculating as long as we have not found such helmets, so bear with me.

I cannot help feeling the artist of Mikkalus' tombstone is in a different category from those of the soldier tombstones of the 1st centuries. While the latter seem to be made by dexterious masons, their figures not being very accomplished, lacking the classical proportion and looking rather stiff and constipated, Mikkalus' tombstone shows lively, classically Hellenistic soldiers in what seems to me historicising gear. I suspect that Mikkalus' berieved had the money to pay a high status classical artist, instead of the mason around the corner. While such a mason would work on the gear his clients would bring him, an artist worked with the paraphernalia of his own trade, used to portray religious, historic or mythical figures.