09-24-2009, 05:59 PM
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*
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
