01-08-2009, 10:35 PM
Howard/SPC wrote:
Of course, the original proto-'Montefortino' types were also of Celtic origin appearing around the end of the 5th C BC, and arrived in Italy with the Celtic invasions. It quickly became the most common type in Northern Italy, and was widely used by the Roman Army and its Italian Allies with the addition of cheekpieces. This 'Montefortino' with cheek-pieces can thus be called a 'native Italian' type. Cheekpieces were in turn adopted by the Celts, often in the shape/form of the Samnite-style 'triple-disc' breastplates.
By the late 1st C BC, they had been made in Italy, and even 'mass-produced' for several hundred years.
Once Rome began to expand beyond Italy, 'locally' manufactured arms and armour start to appear in the Roman army, first with Scipio's capture of the Carthaginian arsenal at Cartagena, then in Southern Gaul during Caesar's conquests giving rise to new 'types' of weapons - which was the point of my post contrasting these newer 'types' with traditional 'made in Italy/native Italian' types.
I guess the point here is that we should not fall into the trap of basing a typology purely on superficial appearance ( e.g. lumping together Monefortino and Coolus 'D' types), but as R-R recognised, also take into account construction methods/metal-working traditions/cultural origins of the helmet as well.
Howard/SPC wrote:
This individual craftsmanship gives rise to another problem of 'typologies'. With rare exceptions, most representatives that have come down to us are a single example from a particular time/place/workshop, meaning that if looked at in detail, each one is 'individual'. How can one tell if a particular find is a unique 'one-off', or a single surviving representative of a type produced by the hundred or thousand? Currently, in many cases, we even have to use guesswork to allocate a particular helmet as 'legionary','cavalry', or 'auxiliary' for example ( and I'd bet the distinction is quite blurred anyway).
Then, of course, there are the many partial finds/fragments, all but impossible to allocate a 'type' to.
To my mind it is difficult if not impossible to go much beyond the broad style of classification of R-R or something similar( in which case why re-invent the wheel?). As Mike Bishop has pointed out, any typology must be capable of evolving as new finds come to light. When R-R put forward his study, it could only be 'frozen/crystallised' in book form but armed with on-line technology, why not build on that, rather than start anew?
Any absolutely new information can be categorised by extending R-R's classifications or adding new branches/sub-branches, as is going to be the case with any 'new' typology framework anyway ! :?
Quote:Could I just query that Montefortino helmets "evolved from a native Italian type"?....sorry for any confusion caused. By "native Italian", I meant helmets made in Italy, in contrast to what I wrote next:
Quote:On the other hand the 'Coolus/jockey-cap type' originate with Gallic smiths in the Coolus-Marne district, evolving from a native gallic type...i.e. those made in Gaul.
Of course, the original proto-'Montefortino' types were also of Celtic origin appearing around the end of the 5th C BC, and arrived in Italy with the Celtic invasions. It quickly became the most common type in Northern Italy, and was widely used by the Roman Army and its Italian Allies with the addition of cheekpieces. This 'Montefortino' with cheek-pieces can thus be called a 'native Italian' type. Cheekpieces were in turn adopted by the Celts, often in the shape/form of the Samnite-style 'triple-disc' breastplates.
By the late 1st C BC, they had been made in Italy, and even 'mass-produced' for several hundred years.
Once Rome began to expand beyond Italy, 'locally' manufactured arms and armour start to appear in the Roman army, first with Scipio's capture of the Carthaginian arsenal at Cartagena, then in Southern Gaul during Caesar's conquests giving rise to new 'types' of weapons - which was the point of my post contrasting these newer 'types' with traditional 'made in Italy/native Italian' types.
I guess the point here is that we should not fall into the trap of basing a typology purely on superficial appearance ( e.g. lumping together Monefortino and Coolus 'D' types), but as R-R recognised, also take into account construction methods/metal-working traditions/cultural origins of the helmet as well.
Howard/SPC wrote:
Quote:Could the Montefortino type of helmet perhaps have emerged and somewhat achieved its characteristic form about 1000 BC among the Central European Urnfield cultures (from whom both Italics and Celts emerged [1]) rather than later in Italy?Personally, I would say not, because none of the helmets ( with the possible exception of 3) display characteristics of the Italian 'Montefortino', or even cheekpiece-less Celtic 'proto-Montefortino' helmets (one-piece finial drawn from bowl, flange on rim extending into neck-guard, bowl shape etc) - and I am conscious that not every 'Montefortino' has all the characteristics of the type - inevitable in an era of individual craftsmanship. One cannot show an evolutionary link either in 'style' or construction method etc in the examples chosen - too many 'missing links', if you will.( again with the possible exception of 3).
This individual craftsmanship gives rise to another problem of 'typologies'. With rare exceptions, most representatives that have come down to us are a single example from a particular time/place/workshop, meaning that if looked at in detail, each one is 'individual'. How can one tell if a particular find is a unique 'one-off', or a single surviving representative of a type produced by the hundred or thousand? Currently, in many cases, we even have to use guesswork to allocate a particular helmet as 'legionary','cavalry', or 'auxiliary' for example ( and I'd bet the distinction is quite blurred anyway).
Then, of course, there are the many partial finds/fragments, all but impossible to allocate a 'type' to.
To my mind it is difficult if not impossible to go much beyond the broad style of classification of R-R or something similar( in which case why re-invent the wheel?). As Mike Bishop has pointed out, any typology must be capable of evolving as new finds come to light. When R-R put forward his study, it could only be 'frozen/crystallised' in book form but armed with on-line technology, why not build on that, rather than start anew?
Any absolutely new information can be categorised by extending R-R's classifications or adding new branches/sub-branches, as is going to be the case with any 'new' typology framework anyway ! :?
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
