Iconographical interpretation

[Renatus]

Suppose someone dug this up on a site...




... and the only similar physical example in the archaeological record was this.



It would be an easy mistake to interpret that sculpture as an engraved bronze helmet like the one here since they both date to the same time period and were found in the same region. The only reason we know it is depicting a boars tusk helmet is because physical examples have been found and there is a detailed description of one in the Iliad. For a long time it was thought that Homer imagined them until they started turning up at sites.

These examples illustrate very well my general approach to iconographic and literary evidence, namely, that we ignore them at our peril. Both the sculpture and the bronze helmet seek to depict the boar's tusk helmet and Homer has been proved right. A kernel of truth lies behind many an apparently inexplicable description. Our task is to try to discover what it is. Speculation is permissible, as long as it is acknowleged for what it is, until something comes up that confirms or disproves it. Take Richard III; he was not the hunch-backed monster of Tudor propaganda but he did have a spinal deformity.