Toledo helmet

[Tarbicus]

Just to put this baby to bed:

The corrosion on the helmet was chiseled/punched, and not corrosion.

[Sean Manning]

About the form. Clearly seen on the column of Trajan, and a few other examples. Where does this form come from? It is the opinion of many military historians that artist's just made stuff up, this is just an assumption however. We have plenty of evidence that they don't make stuff up for no reason. If the toledo helmet is a votive, a fabulous object made to be a dedication, it makes the helmets on the column make far more sense.

However, hard to get around the metallurgical analysis.

I have to see it.

Update:

On the whole art historian vs. archaeology battle.

military historians and archaeologists too often rely on the crutch of artist's license to explain away data they don't like. If they see it in art, and it doesn't confirm their expectations, they chock it up to artistic license. This is lazy and easy. We then have to explain why an artist in the w. mediterranean, separated by 100's of miles and dozens of years, renders items exactly identical to an artist in the east. This is usually answered as a slavish form or adherence to a model book (for which there is no evidence) or a master journeyman artist (for which there is no evidence as well). In other words, Artists use their license when it doesn't agree with our data, but can not use it in such a way as to differ from other artists.

I think we can all agree how tennuous that is.

I hate to say it (as it is unpopular among re-enactors) but the helmets on the column of trajan are the way they are for a reason. wishing them away is just silly.

Careful there, T! Treating art like photographs has produced many mistakes in the past, like the idea of armour of un-linked rings in early medieval Europe or armour of studded leather in the fourteenth century. Relying on art for small details of appearance is quite dangerous.

We know that official art styles can persist for many centuries after they no longer reflect current reality, and that Roman artists often followed a cannon of Hellenistic examples. We also have many examples of the ancients preferring to be traditional than accurate (eg. the number of accounts by authors who should have known better that describe the barbarians and easterners of Greek ideology rather than real Germans or Medes). There are plenty of reasons why gear on Trajan's column could look the way it does other than "that's how it looked in real life."

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Travis,
Like Tarbi, I've seen the metallurgical analysis. Apart from the pitting, it also showed that it was made of silver with inclusions from a 19th century refining process. It's also very thick metal, unlike most Roman helmets.
It's provenance is a nicely convoluted story: it was supposedly found during illegal digs in Syria in the 1930s and then 'recovered' by Syrian police during a raid. The French archaeologist Seyrig, who was working in the area and iirc first described it, didn't actually see it anywhere near where it was 'found'.

[tlclark]

Hi Travis,
Like Tarbi, I've seen the metallurgical analysis. Apart from the pitting, it also showed that it was made of silver with inclusions from a 19th century refining process.

That's pretty much irrefutable.

It's also very thick metal, unlike most Roman helmets.

But not thicker than in votives, which are common. Military votives are common in many ancient sources. The material and weight is one of the reasons to suspect it was a votive.

If it was a votive it would explain SOOO much. It would be an incredible insight into why this odd helmet shows up so many places. It's context. The helmet is an art object created for the purpose of a votive, an excellent model for a monumental and memorial object.

It's provenance is a nicely convoluted story: it was supposedly found during illegal digs in Syria in the 1930s and then 'recovered' by Syrian police during a raid. The French archaeologist Seyrig, who was working in the area and iirc first described it, didn't actually see it anywhere near where it was 'found'.

Heh. That's no more convoluted than most I'm afraid to say. But the metallurgical analysis is probably definitive and damn near impossible to explain away.

Aw shucks. :x

[tlclark]

Careful there, T! Treating art like photographs has produced many mistakes in the past, like the idea of armour of un-linked rings in early medieval Europe or armour of studded leather in the fourteenth century. Relying on art for small details of appearance is quite dangerous.

We know that official art styles can persist for many centuries after they no longer reflect current reality, and that Roman artists often followed a cannon of Hellenistic examples. We also have many examples of the ancients preferring to be traditional than accurate (eg. the number of accounts by authors who should have known better that describe the barbarians and easterners of Greek ideology rather than real Germans or Medes). There are plenty of reasons why gear on Trajan's column could look the way it does other than "that's how it looked in real life."

Well I'm an art historian and not a military historian.

I never argued it looked that way "in real life" but saying it is merely a convention is not a way to explain it, it's a way to explain it AWAY.

Now consider the opposite. You have a form in art, it is durable, repeated across media, generations, and region.

Why?

This form of helmet is seen many places. Go back to Vermuele's original article to see. It was repeated in Syria, in Rome, and in Trajanic, Antonine and other contexts.

Now there are only two explanations for this if we assume that this is not an actual object (votive or otherwise).

1. Roman artists were slavish to certain conventions, even across several generations of time ( a hundred or more years in fact) and large geographic regions, transmitted by either master artists and their apprentices or model books.

This is counterfactual to the claim above. If artist's just make stuff up, why do they make it up all the same? Historians are happy to break out the "Artistic convention" crutch to explain (or rather explain away) forms they don't like, but have no qualms when they do like something.

What does the evidence support? Are we judging it based on its own merits or on our assumptions?

2. There is some solid reason for making it look the way it does, and the object does exist or contains some reference to an actual purpose.

There is no evidence for model books, or master masons over such a broad area and time, so we have to accept the latter.

Does that mean that we have an actual object? Maybe, maybe not. But dismissing it is not the product of reasoned argument or logic. It's the product of assumptions about what Roman artists may or may not do.

Let's assume that this helmet type never existed.

Why the consistency then? Artist's do NOT just make stuff up despite what people say, and when they do, it's obvious, and if they did in this case, why would they all use their artistic license to make the SAME stuff up over such a broad specturm of time and place? For a convention to be a convention there has to be a reason. If this is a convention, it's a very specific and rigid one. That alone makes it of interest to art historians, even more so if it did not exist, because it means the symbolism of this helment was more valuable to them than accuracy. This is not just some idle fantasy as is found in some isolates. It is a pattern. The pattern must have a reason to exist.

If the convention is hellenistic, ok, fine, show me the hellenistic model. In many cases you can do that. In many other cases, you can not. This is one of the later. That makes it a mystery, and not one to be shrugged off.

[Tarbicus]

Travis, why do you need a manual for sculptors when they exist all around you in the established cosmopolitan areas? Do you never see art students sent to galleries and museums to copy the masters with their sketchbooks even today? The exception is always Adamklissi, which at the time of the metopes being sculpted was not a long established and traditional cosmopolitan province. They show none of the traits seen in the mainstream examples, and perhaps that's because they were made from life study and not from earlier sculptures, even when they portray the exact same war that the TC does. Uncontaminated, so to speak.

The difference in style screams that they were made by a class of sculptor very different to the classical sculptors of the establishment. None of the metopes show helmets anything like what we see in Italy or France, but they certainly correspond to the archaeological record.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

So, the helmet was a fake was it? :twisted:

[FlaviusCrispus]

The exception is always Adamklissi, which at the time of the metopes being sculpted was not a long established and traditional cosmopolitan province. They show none of the traits seen in the mainstream examples, and perhaps that's because they were made from life study and not from earlier sculptures, even when they portray the exact same war that the TC does. Uncontaminated, so to speak.

That would be fine if Trajan's Column wasn't itself an abberation from all previous monumental sculpture. Certainly the soldiers depicted there, shown in segmented armor and chain mail, don't conform to any hellenistic prototype. I've never understood the "Adamklissi is absolutely trustworthy, but Trajan's Column is just some sculptor's wet dream" school of thought.

[Tarbicus]

I've never understood the "Adamklissi is absolutely trustworthy, but Trajan's Column is just some sculptor's wet dream" school of thought.

I thought I explained in my previous post.

If TC is aberrant in portraying segs for the first time, doesn't that make large scale mainstream monuments suspicious as a whole, given we know for a fact that segs were in use from at least 9BC? Then take Adamklissi, and hey presto, they completely contradict other such monuments in their portrayal of the soldier, IMHO reflecting found archaeological examples, and are clearly not sculpted by mainstream establishment sculptors. Okay, they don't portray segs, but if the subjects used for basing the soldiers on are auxilia stationed there after the campaign.

Uncontaminated by establishment rules is what I see in the metopes, especially as the faces seem to reflect what little I've seen of Dacian art in their stylisation. If you don't, then you don't.

[Ebusitanus]

Our friends at Ars dimicandi do seem to believe this helmet saw use and show it in their reenactments:

[Uwe Bahr]

Salve Ebusitanus,

what is the helmet on the small photo from and do You have a bigger one?

To keep the discussion going - I have some better photos (IMHO) yet about the Toledo helmet that show details more clearly.

Reported to have been found in 1936 in a tomb of the necropolis of Edesa (modern Homs), Syria. Silver with incised decoration and bronze ornaments covered in gold leaf. Height 12 1/8 inch (31,4 cm). The ring on the top is fitted with a rivetted base so that it turns in all directions, allowing the helmet to be displayed hung on a wall or spear if not in use. The stylised oak leaf under the ring may allude to the corona civica. On the brow guard is a ram.

Enjoy - Uwe

[Uwe Bahr]

Two other pictures, after and before restauration. When aquired the piece was heavily tarnished and rather heavily dented. It had the appearance of a battered piece of blued steel. Lily sprays are engraved on both sides of the neck piece. A molding outlines all contours of the helmet, visor and cheek pieces.

Greets - Uwe

[Ebusitanus]

what is the helmet on the small photo from and do You have a bigger one?

I took all pictures from the Ars dimicandi website:

http://www.arsdimicandi.net/ad_1-000076.htm

[tlclark]

Travis, why do you need a manual for sculptors when they exist all around you in the established cosmopolitan areas? Do you never see art students sent to galleries and museums to copy the masters with their sketchbooks even today?

Yes but we don't see anything like the uniformity amongst contemporary art students that we do in classical artists. (But that may just reflect the talents of contemporary artists)

Bottom line, we don't know enough about ancient sculpture workshops to know. The best evidence is the many mason marks from Leptis Magna, 90% of which are in Greek! Are all ancient sculptors greek? Unlikely, but there is evidence of that.

But again, if you go to Vermeule's first article on this, the form is known as far and wide as Syria and the Iberian peninsula. Are they all copying the TC? That's an argument that works with the CoMA since both are in the same location, Rome, it gets much harder with a form as rigid as this spread over such a wide area. Artist's did travel, but then why pick this convention over all others? It also assumes that TC is the prototype when it probably isn't. The helmet shows up earlier.

The exception is always Adamklissi, which at the time of the metopes being sculpted was not a long established and traditional cosmopolitan province. They show none of the traits seen in the mainstream examples, and perhaps that's because they were made from life study and not from earlier sculptures, even when they portray the exact same war that the TC does. Uncontaminated, so to speak.

The difference in style screams that they were made by a class of sculptor very different to the classical sculptors of the establishment. None of the metopes show helmets anything like what we see in Italy or France, but they certainly correspond to the archaeological record.

Aw gad. Now we have to bring Adamklissi back into this? Haven't I shown enough contrition in that regard? :wink:

Basically, Military historians have it easy. They can dismiss the artistic evidence when they want to if they can't find any corroboration in literature or archaeology, (they also get to use art when they want to, blighters! - and yes, that's professional jealousy on display here) :wink: . It doesn't matter to an art historian if the helmet existed or not. We still have to explain it.

This is a hard nut to crack. It ain't just fantasy. Somewhere somehow this helmet either existed or was created and held a lot of significance to warrant inclusion.

[tlclark]

The exception is always Adamklissi, which at the time of the metopes being sculpted was not a long established and traditional cosmopolitan province. They show none of the traits seen in the mainstream examples, and perhaps that's because they were made from life study and not from earlier sculptures, even when they portray the exact same war that the TC does. Uncontaminated, so to speak.

That would be fine if Trajan's Column wasn't itself an abberation from all previous monumental sculpture. Certainly the soldiers depicted there, shown in segmented armor and chain mail, don't conform to any hellenistic prototype. I've never understood the "Adamklissi is absolutely trustworthy, but Trajan's Column is just some sculptor's wet dream" school of thought.

Thank you!!

Exactly. I should have said it as well.

TC has its problems but saying it's all artistic convention ignores how meticulous it is AND how many other artistic examples corroborate it. That doesn't mean it was real, but it doesn't automatically indict it either.

We also have to consider accidental survival and whether all of this will be upturned by a later find.

This is a HUGE problem in my main area, byzantine illumination. We love to put items into recensions, but many examples fit into no recension. If we lost that one example, we could not possibly recreate it from the surviving example.s