Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Greek helmets galore
#16
Quote:That has to suffice.
Nope, sorry, only if the admins say so. There may be valid reasons for not wanting your name on the forum, certainly, but in such cases we do expect an explanation which you may PM to Matt Lukes or me.
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#17
Quote:PMBardunias wrote:
The eye holes on the Apulo-corinthian are for show, the helmet sits too high on the head and they are generally too small to be seen through.


I know.

PMBardunias wrote:
Rather than being rendered useless, this helmet (#193) was reinforced with a decorated plate.


No. Never ever.

PMBardunias wrote:
... that some would rather look like greeks on vases with their helms pulled back on their heads even at the cost of protection.


That's nonsense. Sorry.

Wow. What a great example for discussion-culture. :o

Great arguments...
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.

LEGIO XIII GEMINA

[Image: BannerAER-1-1.jpg]
Reply
#18
Of the unpublished helmets you are working with, how many have secure provenances? Any new examples of Thraco-Attic helmets from the Hellenistic world, and if so, from where and what context(s)?
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#19
Well, well, the apulo-corinthian helmet: that will be complicated ...

1) Because the corinthian helmet was developed for full-face-and-head-protection, it would be nonsense to wear it in actual battle in the pulled-back-position, as dozens of vase-paintings depict it. So, the pulled-back-position of the corinthian helmet must be an iconographic fiction. It was apparently created by the vase-painter Exekias around 530 BC. Like the upturned or missing cheekpieces of chalcidian and attic helmets, it serves for showing the physiognomy of the wearer.

2) In the whole typological history of the corinthian helmet there is no stage from which the apulo-corinthian helmet could have been derived. The earliest examples of the apulo-corinthian helmet differ enormously from contemporary corinthian helmets. So, the apulo-corinthian helmet wasn't developed out of the corinthian helmet, but is a complete new type of helmet, but following the general appearance of the popular corinthian helmet.

3) As you rightfully pointed out, the apulo-corinthian helmet wasn't worn over the face, but upturned. I don't think it was this way because of imitating the depicted upturned position of the corinthian helmet, but suitable for another form of battle in the hilly landscape of Italy.

4) The covering of the fake-eye-holes IS a form of "killing" the weapon, because the "face" of the weapon was blinded in a symbolic way.

*is this logical? I'm not feeling well*
Jörg
Reply
#20
Quote:Of the unpublished helmets you are working with, how many have secure provenances? Any new examples of Thraco-Attic helmets from the Hellenistic world, and if so, from where and what context(s)?

Not many have secure provenances, but mostly it isn't difficult to reconstruct the provenance. ;-) )

A thraco-attic helmet? I think I know which helmet you mean, but I hate this term, because there is absolutely no reason to call them "thracian". These helmets will be subject of a whole study, in which I'll try to prove from the perspective of construction that they are direct descendants of the "normal" attic helmet. My catalogue lists 16 helmets and a couple of fragments.
Jörg
Reply
#21
Quote:1) Because the corinthian helmet was developed for full-face-and-head-protection, it would be nonsense to wear it in actual battle in the pulled-back-position, as dozens of vase-paintings depict it. So, the pulled-back-position of the corinthian helmet must be an iconographic fiction. It was apparently created by the vase-painter Exekias around 530 BC. Like the upturned or missing cheekpieces of chalcidian and attic helmets, it serves for showing the physiognomy of the wearer.

I have no doubt that they did wear the corinthian in the raised position, just not in combat. It is not simply a symbolic representation to show the face. When I used to play american football, with helmets much better ventilated than a corinthian helmet, we pushed our helmets up into the same position high on the head any chance we got. The difference in ventilation is remarkable, and since we lose heat very well through the head the body is kept cooler.


Quote:2) In the whole typological history of the corinthian helmet there is no stage from which the apulo-corinthian helmet could have been derived. The earliest examples of the apulo-corinthian helmet differ enormously from contemporary corinthian helmets. So, the apulo-corinthian helmet wasn't developed out of the corinthian helmet, but is a complete new type of helmet, but following the general appearance of the popular corinthian helmet.

The earliest I have seen look almost exactly like a Corinthian, with large eyes and nasal. The only major difference is that the bowl of the helmet is not deep enough to wear it like a Corinthian, instead it must be worn on the forehead. See attached image. Note the small prongs with pins to hold something like the horn ornaments. Why anyone would wear a helmet with so much of the forehead exposed is beyond me unless it is simple fashion. Perhaps these were not worn in battle.

Quote:3) As you rightfully pointed out, the apulo-corinthian helmet wasn't worn over the face, but upturned. I don't think it was this way because of imitating the depicted upturned position of the corinthian helmet, but suitable for another form of battle in the hilly landscape of Italy.

I agree that they were designed so as to have a more opened helmet, but it is impossible to deny that the model is a pushed back corinthian. There are a wide variety of other opened helmets that don't look like pushed back Corinthians. If it is not modeled on the corinthian, then it is frankly an impossible coincidence that it looks just like one.

Quote:4) The covering of the fake-eye-holes IS a form of "killing" the weapon, because the "face" of the weapon was blinded in a symbolic way.

Perhaps, but this would need to be proven by analogy with earlier corinthians killed in this way rather than assumed. The far safer assumption is that the wearer wanted a helmet that offered more protection. Perhaps he took a funerary helmet and made it serviceable by riveting on bronze patches as is common in fixing broken helmets?
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#22
Our opinions seem to differ.
Jörg
Reply
#23
Quote:3) As you rightfully pointed out, the apulo-corinthian helmet wasn't worn over the face, but upturned. I don't think it was this way because of imitating the depicted upturned position of the corinthian helmet, but suitable for another form of battle in the hilly landscape of Italy.

Why couldn't it be both? It seems to me that they wanted an open-faced helmet with a visor, but wanted the Corinthian aesthetic.

Quote:Not many have secure provenances, but mostly it isn't difficult to reconstruct the provenance. ;-) )

A thraco-attic helmet? I think I know which helmet you mean, but I hate this term, because there is absolutely no reason to call them "thracian". These helmets will be subject of a whole study, in which I'll try to prove from the perspective of construction that they are direct descendants of the "normal" attic helmet. My catalogue lists 16 helmets and a couple of fragments.

What term do you prefer? As with most Hellenistic helmets, the terminology varies, but I usually just go with the most commonplace one, as we know by now that so many names are misnomers that it would require a total change of terminology to get it "right." Anyway, are you working with any new or unpublished examples? Which fragmentary examples are you working with? As for your thesis, I thought it was already fairly well-established that they did emerge from the Attic helmet throughout the 4th c. BC (Eero Jarva, at least, posits this).

Also, can you tell me anything about this helmet from the Guttmann collection and its provenance?

[Image: BrimmedKonosfromMak1.jpg]
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#24
Quote:Our opinions seem to differ.

Yes, can you defend yours?
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#25
Quote:
Quote:Our opinions seem to differ.

Yes, can you defend yours?

He hasn't so far. If this joker won't even give his real name then begone with him.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#26
Quote:He hasn't so far. If this joker won't even give his real name then begone with him.

Dan, Am I off base here? I don't understand his point of view, but this is surely not a specialty of mine. What do you others think?
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#27
Well, I have no doubt that the corinthian helmet in its upturned position was an iconographic fiction.
Fact: The first depictions of the upturned position can be dated around 530 BC.
Fact: The corinthian helmet is ca. two centuries older.
Simple question: Why wasn't the upturned position depicted earlier?

Quote: What term do you prefer? As with most Hellenistic helmets, the terminology varies, but I usually just go with the most commonplace one, as we know by now that so many names are misnomers that it would require a total change of terminology to get it "right." Anyway, are you working with any new or unpublished examples? Which fragmentary examples are you working with? As for your thesis, I thought it was already fairly well-established that they did emerge from the Attic helmet throughout the 4th c. BC (Eero Jarva, at least, posits this).

You're right, it was well theorized (e. g. Waurick 1988) that they did emerge from the attic helmet, but so far a direct evidence was missing. The hellenistic attic helmets are mainly composed of seven pieces: two halves of the calotte, one "triangle"-piece, one frontlet-piece, the neck-guard and two cheekpieces. I was able to identify a helmet from the 4th century without the protruding frontlet, but constructed in the same manner from seven pieces.

Quote: Anyway, are you working with any new or unpublished examples? Which fragmentary examples are you working with?

14 of the 16 are published, but mostly in very, very difficult to find russian books. Two are, as far as I know, unpublished. The fragments are: one "triangle"-piece from Egypt (no better provenance known), two casts of "triangle"-pieces from Memphis, one calotte-fragment from Vergina, a cheekpiece from Vergina, a cheekpiece from Aiani, a cheekpiece from Odessos-Levski, one frontlet-fragment from Lake Chokrak (Crimea) and two calotte-fragments from Elizavetovskaja Stanica (Russia).

Quote: Also, can you tell me anything about this helmet from the Guttmann collection and its provenance?

This helmet (according to my terminology a "piloid") wasn't part of the Guttmann collection. As far as I know, it was offered for sale by the Royal Athena Galleries and came from an european collection. For the type of the helmet, please compare depictions on the weapon-reliefs from Pergamon.
Jörg
Reply
#28
Quote:Well, I have no doubt that the corinthian helmet in its upturned position was an iconographic fiction.
Fact: The first depictions of the upturned position can be dated around 530 BC.
Fact: The corinthian helmet is ca. two centuries older.
Simple question: Why wasn't the upturned position depicted earlier?

It seems likely to me that the depiction of the Corinthian worn in the upright position was an iconographic innovation, but I don't think it can be doubted that soldiers would have worn their helmets upturned sometimes when not in combat. Perhaps the upturned position was simply introduced by one artist, and then caught on from there?

Quote:You're right, it was well theorized (e. g. Waurick 1988) that they did emerge from the attic helmet, but so far a direct evidence was missing. The hellenistic attic helmets are mainly composed of seven pieces: two halves of the calotte, one "triangle"-piece, one frontlet-piece, the neck-guard and two cheekpieces. I was able to identify a helmet from the 4th century without the protruding frontlet, but constructed in the same manner from seven pieces.

Is that a published helmet?

Quote:14 of the 16 are published, but mostly in very, very difficult to find russian books. Two are, as far as I know, unpublished. The fragments are: one "triangle"-piece from Egypt (no better provenance known), two casts of "triangle"-pieces from Memphis, one calotte-fragment from Vergina, a cheekpiece from Vergina, a cheekpiece from Aiani, a cheekpiece from Odessos-Levski, one frontlet-fragment from Lake Chokrak (Crimea) and two calotte-fragments from Elizavetovskaja Stanica (Russia).

I'm curious what your criteria are for determining that something is "Attic." What do you include within this term? With the mixing and matching of helmet characteristics that is so common in the Hellenistic period, how can you be sure that, for instance, a frontlet piece like the one from lake Chokrak or a cheekpiece belongs to one particular type of helmet?

Quote:This helmet (according to my terminology a "piloid") wasn't part of the Guttmann collection. As far as I know, it was offered for sale by the Royal Athena Galleries and came from an european collection. For the type of the helmet, please compare depictions on the weapon-reliefs from Pergamon.

I am trying to find information about this (apparently unprovenanced) helmet because it seems to have been found with remnants of mail, which would make it an extremely important Hellenistic find. Macedonia seems a likely provenance, though, given that a fairly well-preserved helmet of this type was found in Upper Macedonia in a 2nd c. BC cavalryman's grave.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#29
I suggest you look without prejudice on some vase-paintings (eg from Euphronios) depicting warriors with upturned helmets and tell me: Wouldn't the pulled back helmet fall down backwards?

You're right, the mixing of elements was quite common concerning helmets, look only on the "piloid"-helmets which combine a pilos-like-shape with a frontlet akin to an attic helmet.
My definition of an hellenistic attic helmet ist the mentioned construction out of seven pieces. The mentioned precursor is preserved for instance in the iron-helmet from Vergina, but the seven-piece-construction is more evident on a helmet from Canosa. This precursor is also depicted on coins from Orthagoreia.

And you're right, I can't be 100% sure in attributing fragments to one particular type. But at least the attribution of the "triangle"-pieces ist undoubtable, because they appear solely on the hellenistic attic helmets. The type-attribution of the other (all published) fragments wasn't made by me, I follow convincing theories.

Quote:I am trying to find information about this (apparently unprovenanced) helmet because it seems to have been found with remnants of mail, which would make it an extremely important Hellenistic find. Macedonia seems a likely provenance, though, given that a fairly well-preserved helmet of this type was found in Upper Macedonia in a 2nd c. BC cavalryman's grave.

Could you please tell me more?
Jörg
Reply
#30
Quote:I suggest you look without prejudice on some vase-paintings (eg from Euphronios) depicting warriors with upturned helmets and tell me: Wouldn't the pulled back helmet fall down backwards?

I don't know, I think this is a case where a practical test could settle this.

Quote:You're right, the mixing of elements was quite common concerning helmets, look only on the "piloid"-helmets which combine a pilos-like-shape with a frontlet akin to an attic helmet.
My definition of an hellenistic attic helmet ist the mentioned construction out of seven pieces. The mentioned precursor is preserved for instance in the iron-helmet from Vergina, but the seven-piece-construction is more evident on a helmet from Canosa. This precursor is also depicted on coins from Orthagoreia.

So do you consider, for instance, the Bobuec helmet to be "Attic"? I don't think it's composed of seven pieces, but it has all the characteristics of what most call "Thraco-Attic" helmets - a small crest, a frontlet terminating in volutes, a visor and brim. And what about the Gavani helmet, which has all the characteristics of "Thraco Attic" helmets, but is missing the small crest?

Quote:And you're right, I can't be 100% sure in attributing fragments to one particular type. But at least the attribution of the "triangle"-pieces ist undoubtable, because they appear solely on the hellenistic attic helmets. The type-attribution of the other (all published) fragments wasn't made by me, I follow convincing theories.

Which triangle pieces do you mean? The triangular "peak" of the frontlet?

Quote:Could you please tell me more?

It was published in Pierre Juhel, “Un casque inédit de la basse époque hellénistique conserve au muse de Prilep (République de Macédoine),” in Revue des Études Anciennes 110, 1(2008): 89-102. It's a "piloid" helmet which is almost identical to that seen on several 2nd c. BC funerary stelae depicting cavalrymen. It looks like the Royal Athena helmet, only without frontlet/volutes and with smaller brim but a more pronounced neck protector; it's also missing cheek pieces. It was found in a burial including a machaira and two javelins near a Hellenistic fort on the northern border of Antigonid Macedonia in Pelagonia. Though it didn't include any horse equipment, it seems very likely from the equipment and helm combination that the deceased was a cavalryman.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Greek Helmets With Scales Iphitos 47 6,789 05-10-2014, 05:20 AM
Last Post: Feinman
  Greek Helmets. with or without crests.... ?? MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS 44 13,436 03-13-2012, 04:54 PM
Last Post: The Dioskouri
  Tinning on Greek helmets Marcus Mummius 1 1,029 12-22-2008, 08:33 PM
Last Post: hoplite14gr

Forum Jump: