| Welcome to Bronze Age Center. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| One horn or two???? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 16 2015, 10:26 AM (1,960 Views) | |
| George Nicolaides | Apr 16 2015, 10:26 AM Post #1 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi guys, I’ve just finished a long email discussions with Mr Andrea Salimbeti (arguement would be more accurate) concerning one of his reconstructions, namely his reconstruction of a warrior depicted on a pottery shard from Bogazkoy. http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/helmets2.htm Mr Salimbeti has reconstructed the helmet with one horn jutting from the forehead. To me that just seemed wrong, so I emailed Andrea and put forward the possibility that the depiction was in profile and that the helmet might actually have two horns, in keeping with other horned helmets of the Bronze Age (Warrior Vase, Sherden Helmets, Cypriot examples). Would Andrea consider this possibility? Not a chance! His view is that there is no reson to alter what this artist clearly shows, one horn jutting from the forehead. So I’m writing to this forum for a ‘second opinion’ as it were, from the experts. Is Andrea right? Or could this helmet have two brow horns, like other bronze age examples. Looking forward to your opinions Regards George |
![]() |
|
| Todd Feinman | Apr 16 2015, 12:50 PM Post #2 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi George,Glad to hear Andrea is still kicking! He has a great site. Well, same old problem! Trying to interpret ambiguous ancient art and attempting to second guess an artist who is long dead. In reality either one of you could be correct, but Andrea just trying to stick to a "literal" interpretation of the art without resorting to interpretation --and in a case like this, it's probably a wise idea unless there is an overriding and compelling reason not to. Personally I think you are likely to be correct given all of the other depictions of horned helmets; and other Hittite depictions that show a horn placed at the side of a helmet, that no one has questioned is one horn of two. If horns represent virility or divinity or the strength of wild animals, heck! Give me TWO (or four) --I don't want to be no stinking unicorn... |
![]() |
|
| Matthew Amt | Apr 16 2015, 01:55 PM Post #3 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, that's kind of a fundamental question, isn't it? On the one hand, it's hard to disagree with going by what the artwork shows. But on the other hand, if all the *other* evidence points a different direction, then 2 horns sounds more likely to me. It does seem kind of odd that Andrea insists on a strict interpretation in this case, since some of his other interpretations are pretty wild, in my opinion. The whole concept of "interlaced leather strips" for the helmet itself is just another manifestation of what is practically a leather fetish... From other parts of Europe there are whole series of BRONZE helmets that are decorated just like that! I'd go with 2 horns, too, myself. With the right to change my mind on a weekly basis, ha! Matthew |
![]() |
|
| Dan Howard | Apr 16 2015, 02:21 PM Post #4 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
His primary problem is his inability to understand that these illustrations are not photos. Illustrations are the worst form of evidence and should only be used if a particular interpretation can be supported with archaeological or textual evidence - ideally both. All illustrations can be interpreted many different ways. Unless you have some other form of evidence to help narrow down the options, you have little more than baseless speculation. Based on all of the other evidence we have, we must conclude that these helmets have at least two horns until something new is uncovered that counters this. It isn't just Andrea. All Italians seem infatuated with leather armour. I have no idea why. |
![]() |
|
| George Nicolaides | Apr 16 2015, 03:54 PM Post #5 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks for the replies guys. That's basically what I thought. With all those other examples floating around, it didn't make sense to me that this one helmet from Anatolia would be so different. When horns are put on a helmet, what better inspiration than the animals you've taken the horns from. Bulls. Sheep, goats etc, they all have two brow horns sticking out from the side or towards the front. Andrea couldn't supply one example of a one horned helmet when I asked him. Do you know of any? When I put forward other two horned examples...warrior vase, Cypriot examples sherden, hittite warrior from hattusas gate etc, he said these were o Irrelevant to what the artist was "clearly"showing on the depiction. I even altered his image with two horns to show him how it would look. Again, he said I shouldn't alter what the artist was clearly showing, and that things like other helmets and artistic conventions of the artist were irrelevant. When I questioned the methods he used for his other reconstructions, he accused me of altering the evidence to suit my "pre judged" view. Well, things got pretty ugly from that point on! Anyway thanks for confirming that my idea wasn't so far fetched. |
![]() |
|
| S. Workman | Apr 17 2015, 12:24 AM Post #6 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, while there are differences of opinion, and thats valid, I never understood why that fragment couldn't just be boars tusks. There are lots of those found in the Mycenaean world. |
![]() |
|
| Todd Feinman | Apr 17 2015, 12:36 AM Post #7 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hmm! Interesting! I like that idea. And the twisty little extension at the top is just a continuation of the leather helmet basis thongs twisted up as a crest. The "horn" does indeed look curved and short like a boar tusk(s). The upper a detail could also be leather covered with boar tusks. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew Amt | Apr 17 2015, 05:25 AM Post #8 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In fact, we don't even know that the post and streamer off the back is part of the helmet! It could easily be something carried by the warrior, or by someone else, or a pole stuck in the ground behind him. Oh, and boar tusks wrapped in *wire* have been found. Don't know of any wrapped in leather... Matthew |
![]() |
|
| S. Workman | Apr 17 2015, 08:30 PM Post #9 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One thing I will say while we are on this topic, I don't believe that ancient artists invented objects from whole cloth. They might have done a bad job at their depiction, or we might not know how to interpret something they clearly would have understood, but I don't think they invented objects to just place in compositions. Ultimately, I think that despite our lack of understanding, most of the work was quite literal. |
![]() |
|
| Dan Howard | Apr 17 2015, 09:54 PM Post #10 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Literal" doesn't really mean anything in these illustrations. They are too crude and the colour palette is too limited. Unless we actually have archaeological remains or textual descriptions to tell us what these illustrations are supposed to be depicting, we can only guess. Take a boars tusk helmet and tell a class room full of kids to draw it. Every single one will draw something different. If you show these pictures to someone who had never seen a boars tusk helmet before then how do you think he will interpret those pictures? He will probably guess that most of them are helmets but that is about it. If you show these pictures to Andrea he will claim that they must have had twenty different types of helmet. |
![]() |
|
| Todd Feinman | Apr 17 2015, 11:43 PM Post #11 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Absolutely. Completely agreed. For example, one of those upper arm guards could just be filled with a decorative pattern the artist enjoyed, and have little to do with actual construction. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew Amt | Apr 18 2015, 01:35 AM Post #12 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Also agreed. I think they generally did depict what was there, or at least things that did exist, but the depictions are just not detailed and clear enough for us to be certain any more. And I figured that "arm guard" was just a decorated tunic sleeve! There are certainly other depictions of decorated clothing, including women's dresses which are not *likely* to be armor. (Mykonos vase, e.g.) Matthew |
![]() |
|
| Dan Howard | Apr 18 2015, 07:55 AM Post #13 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Most scholars thought that Homer fantasised about the boars tusk helmet even though they had seen plenty of illustrations of them on various vases and seals. Without context it is impossible to correctly interpret an illustration. It wasn't until these helmets started turning up in archaeological sites that they started being identified in the illustrations. |
![]() |
|
| S. Workman | Apr 18 2015, 10:40 AM Post #14 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Somehow I think I made myself misunderstood. What I mean is, that however badly the artist executed the drawing or carving, or whatever, and however badly we misinterpret the work for whatever reason, the artists were attempting to illustrate real things in the world that they observed. They did not invent non existent objects to dress up their interpretations of the visible world. The ambiguity in interpretation exists because they were not skilled at drawing and we are not skilled at being bronze age peoples who probably could have done a better job at interpretation. Inventing non existent objects do dress up stories or art is science fiction, a fairly new concept. By literal, I did not mean realistic, I meant that something existed there to be apprehended by the observer. The "one horned guy" potsherd under question also depicts the warrior with circles or spirals on his body. We could gallop off with this in every direction, but the artists' compatriots would have known that they were armor elements, or clothing motifs, or body paint or whatever. The artist did not just arbitrarily put those on for effect, they really were something. So, as much as I enjoy speculation and appreciate the work people put into their interpretations, much of this kind of thing is unconfirmed and unconfirmable. |
![]() |
|
| Todd Feinman | Apr 18 2015, 05:32 PM Post #15 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's amazing how similar some depictions (especially during the post-palatial "Dark Ages") to children's art or naive outsider art. Palatial Mycenaean / Minoan artists seemed to be more interested in accurate depiction; they were likely the best trained and most talented artists available (Egypt ostensibly had the best artists, but talented Greeks created daggers for import or painted murals in places like Akhetaten). Many of the ambiguous depictions come from vases or other artifacts that were likely decorated by amateur artists, not the elite, though abilities with nonrepresentational decoration were very developed. Problem is, unless the artist was drawing directly from life --as in the Renaissance, the depiction is going to be a mix of imperfect memories and playful decorative motifs, which are worse than useless for reconstructing armour or other material artifacts. Even programs of state-sponsored palatial art would likely be drawn first on papyrus, perhaps according to canons of representation rather than reality (and certainly omitting details that would eventually drive re-enactirs and academics MAD millennia later), and THEN transferred to the wall or object to be painted in, introducing more stylization. Before the Dendra Panoply was found, I don't think anyone had a clue from the surviving depictions that armour of that form or the Thebes armour existed. Even with the far better Egyptian depictions, many of the finds in Tut's tomb were completely astonishing --like the armour, underwear, socks, etc. even with all of the details shown of the "Blue War Crown" in Egyptian art, nobody really knows what it was made out of, or if the discs shown were embossed or applied; an example of the crown has never been found. |
![]() |
|
| George Nicolaides | Apr 18 2015, 09:31 PM Post #16 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
When the artists themselves change the way they depict the same thing, we get even further problems with interpretation. A particular example came up during my “discussion” with Mr Salimbeti. In the Sea Peoples section of his site, http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/sea.htmes there is one temple depiction of the Sherden with helmets that have only one horn, while every other temple and graphical depiction shows the familiar two horns shown at the front and back. Mr Salimbeti has taken this one horn depiction literally, and reconstructed a one horn Sherden helmet (with the horn jutting from the forehead) In this depiction he shows this one horned Sherden helmet https://www.pinterest.com/pin/215187688420704170/ Yet in other Sherden depictions he has the two horned helmet http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Bronze-Medit...2641135&sr=1-28 and http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/sea.htmes (Mr Salimbeti also stated that since we can’t be sure how the two horns were arranged, he has shown the two horned helmet in both side to side and one horn front and one horn back reconstructions) Mr Salimbeti saw nothing unusual in the Sherden wearing different helmets (ie: one horned and two horned varieties). To me, it made no sense that the Sherden would come to Egypt wearing a helmet with one horn, and then decide an extra horn subsequently was needed (what, is there something in the Egyptian water????) I put forward the suggestion that in this initial temple depiction, the two horned Sherden helmet was shown in profile, but that in all subsequent depictions the Egyptians standardised on the front view two horn approach. Of course, Mr Salimbeti accused me of altering what was clearly in front of me with a prejudiced , pre judged view. |
![]() |
|
| Todd Feinman | Apr 18 2015, 10:05 PM Post #17 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hmmm. I am having trouble seeing the original depiction in the temple on Andrea's site, with my phone. Context could matter; the Egyptians --with their own horned deities, might have wanted to decrease the virility of the figures depicted in the temple (less likely), or they might have wanted to insult the Sea People's with the depiction. Is it after a battle? Do all of the figures have only one horn in the scene? Is it ALWAYS a side view of the helmet that is depicted with the single horn? |
![]() |
|
| George Nicolaides | Apr 18 2015, 10:58 PM Post #18 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi Todd, The depiction os part of a battle scene. Two sherden figures have the one horn helmets, but there seem to be others with no horns.(assuming these figures are also Sherden) I don't think that the Egyptians were trying denigrate the Sherden, since Sherden seem to have been highly regarded as soldiers. |
![]() |
|
| S. Workman | Apr 18 2015, 11:10 PM Post #19 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Sherden ended up working for the Egytians, did they not? I thought at least one group of Sea People became mercenaries, a sort of Varangian Guard. |
![]() |
|
| Todd Feinman | Apr 18 2015, 11:16 PM Post #20 |
|
Patron
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh okay. Sherden. I was thinking the attack of the Sea Peoples. Yeah, then I'd have to go with your interpretation of two horns seen from the side. The Sherden were auxiliaries in the Egyptian army --heck, the Egyptians could afford to pay soldiers well. They served as Ramses II's elite bodyguards. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Near Eastern Studies · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



1:00 AM Jul 11