Helmet with horns

[rocktupac]

Good call on Xenophon. Of course, now you mention it I go "Oh, of course", but I hadn't recalled it myself.

Yes, indeed! Good call.

Thank you gentlemen! Much appreciated Marcus and Andrew.

[marcus]

It looks then like an interpretation of the evidence in the sources rather than a direct quote, but it is quite persuasive.

Hi Amyntoros,

It seems a bit churlish to reply so briefly to such a long post ... but indeed, it is very persuasive.

As I was looking for the references that rocktupac asked for, I realised how much is still missing from the Concordance (those references weren't in it). I shall have to do some more work on the concordance at some point.

ATB

[Taphoi]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree, Andrew.

Interesting enough, I was watching the Bettany Hughes programme on Helen of Troy the other day (repeated from years ago) and at one point she is looking at the oldest manuscript of Iliad, pointing out where Helen's name appears. It is clear from this that the papyrus scroll (and it was papyrus in this instance) is quite long, and what one sees represents only one book.

Of course, the general idea of a "book" in classical writing is that which fits on one scroll - so Iliad would have been 24 scrolls. (The codex - i.e. book, essentially - wasn't developed until the 1st century AD.) So yes, the entire Iliad would have been quite bulky (although not necessarily that heavy) - certainly bigger than Loeb ...

Not wishing to get into a "How long is a piece of papyrus?" argument, but of course the writing density on a scroll can be as high as in a book. I think the length of scrolls is limited by the ease of finding reference points, which deteriorates as they get longer. Not so with a book, where all the pages are simultaneously accessible.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[akop]

Of course, the general idea of a "book" in classical writing is that which fits on one scroll - so Iliad would have been 24 scrolls. (The codex - i.e. book, essentially - wasn't developed until the 1st century AD.) So yes, the entire Iliad would have been quite bulky (although not necessarily that heavy) - certainly bigger than Loeb ...

Thank you marcus, this is just what I needed! How was it supposed to be read? With one hand you hold one scroll, with the other hand you coil the unfolding manuscript around the second scroll and after you're done reading you rewind it back since on the second scroll the text is now upside down? Or they just let it lay on the floor while they were reading? Sorry if I'm asking for too many details, I just need it for my work.

It would be interesting also to know how could such scroll be decorated? Was it delivered in a special capsule or shell? Have there been any drawings on papyrus or ornaments any other kind of decorations? Were these scrolls kept in a special kind of cabinet or chest?

[amyntoros]

Thank you marcus, this is just what I needed! How was it supposed to be read? With one hand you hold one scroll, with the other hand you coil the unfolding manuscript around the second scroll and after you're done reading you rewind it back since on the second scroll the text is now upside down? Or they just let it lay on the floor while they were reading? Sorry if I'm asking for too many details, I just need it for my work.

The text was written horizontally and divided into columns, so you would have held the papyrus roll horizontally. See this University of Michigan site for more details. I believe you're correct in thinking that the manuscript would have to be rewound after reading, otherwise the next person to read the book would have to do so (much like a video tape!).

It would be interesting also to know how could such scroll be decorated? Was it delivered in a special capsule or shell? Have there been any drawings on papyrus or ornaments any other kind of decorations? Were these scrolls kept in a special kind of cabinet or chest?

I'm not sure whether the Greeks decorated their scrolls but I haven't seen any examples to date. The Romans may have done so - there's a scene in "I Claudius" where Claudius demands that the "printer" remove all the illustrated elephants from the copies of his book. TV shows aren't reknowned for their historical accuracy though, even when they claim otherwise (the current Starz Spartacus series anyone?). With the exception of libraries I don't believe there was any kind of special cabinet or case designed for keeping books although Alexander did utilize a piece of captured booty for his copy of the Iliad.

Plutarch, Alexander 26.1-2 When a small coffer was brought to him, which those in charge of the baggage and wealth of Dareius thought the most precious thing there, he asked his friends what valuable object they thought would most fittingly be deposited in it. And when many answered and there were many opinions, Alexander himself said he was going to deposit the Iliad there for safe keeping. This is attested by many trustworthy authorities.

Best regards,

[amyntoros]

As I was looking for the references that rocktupac asked for, I realised how much is still missing from the Concordance (those references weren't in it). I shall have to do some more work on the concordance at some point.

I suspect that you will find yourself constantly updating the Concordance for as long as people keep asking questions. Hate to say "rather you than me" but I have no idea how to work with "frames" in Word!

Best regards,

[marcus]

Not wishing to get into a "How long is a piece of papyrus?" argument, but of course the writing density on a scroll can be as high as in a book. I think the length of scrolls is limited by the ease of finding reference points, which deteriorates as they get longer. Not so with a book, where all the pages are simultaneously accessible.

Well, yes, but there weren't any books in Alexander's day; everything was on scrolls. And certainly my understanding has always been (and I've never seen anything to contradict it) that one scroll = one "book". Therefore, if a work (e.g. Iliad) has 24 books, then that means there were 24 scrolls.

Or are you saying something different that I'm not getting (I am a bit ill at the moment, so forgive me if I'm being thick)?

ATB

[marcus]

I suspect that you will find yourself constantly updating the Concordance for as long as people keep asking questions. Hate to say "rather you than me" but I have no idea how to work with "frames" in Word!

Think of it as a learning opportunity?

Seriously, I don't mind, because it's an interesting exercise. But I hadn't looked at it for ages, and there is certainly a huge amount that could still be done. As you say, it will be like Penelope's weaving ...

Once I have done more work on it, though, I shall see how best to make it available for people to consult, with very clear version numbers etc!

ATB

[Taphoi]

Well, yes, but there weren't any books in Alexander's day; everything was on scrolls. And certainly my understanding has always been (and I've never seen anything to contradict it) that one scroll = one "book". Therefore, if a work (e.g. Iliad) has 24 books, then that means there were 24 scrolls.
Or are you saying something different that I'm not getting (I am a bit ill at the moment, so forgive me if I'm being thick)?

Sorry to hear that you're poorly. I'm agreeing with you that books/codices generally have much more text than a single scroll, but I'm suggesting that the total weight of papyrus/vellum for the same number of words need not be very different in either case. I'm saying that bulk is not the reason that scrolls were generally shorter than codices. It is not necessarily the case that a work would have been heavier (or even bulkier) as a single codex than as a set of scrolls. Get well soon!

Andrew

[marcus]

Well, yes, but there weren't any books in Alexander's day; everything was on scrolls. And certainly my understanding has always been (and I've never seen anything to contradict it) that one scroll = one "book". Therefore, if a work (e.g. Iliad) has 24 books, then that means there were 24 scrolls.
Or are you saying something different that I'm not getting (I am a bit ill at the moment, so forgive me if I'm being thick)?

Sorry to hear that you're poorly. I'm agreeing with you that books/codices generally have much more text than a single scroll, but I'm suggesting that the total weight of papyrus/vellum for the same number of words need not be very different in either case. I'm saying that bulk is not the reason that scrolls were generally shorter than codices. It is not necessarily the case that a work would have been heavier (or even bulkier) as a single codex than as a set of scrolls. Get well soon!

Yes, I get what you mean, now, and I don't think we're essentially disagreeing. As you say, and I perfectly agree - bulkiness might be an issue (although not necessarily), but certainly they don't have to be that different weight-wise.

I am much better now, thank you. Just the remnants of a generally under-the-weather feeling that, of course, hit me just before the new term started. Two days of rowdy Year 7s soon got me back to normal ...

ATB

[akop]

The Hermitage helmet looks decidedly Renaissance to me, typical of the styles favoured the nobility (boyars) of the 15th to 17th centuries; that is if it is not a more recent replica. Galling though it is I agree with Taphoi the two horned business will have sprung from the depiction of Alexander on Lysimachos' coins which were very popular currency and remained in production until the advent of Rome on the Black Sea. Lacking the cultural references later Persians may well have taken it as a true likeness.

Sorry for bringing the topic back to horny thing. Agesilaos, it just occurred to me that if we agree upon the lion head helmet as being 'real' (at least more real in historical terms than the helmet with horns) then it also falls into the Renaissance-like category, doesn't it? I may say it in a different way: if for example, the lion head helmet is shown to an ancient Greek soldier who is ignorant of Alexander's existence (I'm just speculating) would he be able to classify this helmet somehow? I mean could he say who has made it, on which occasion was it made, is it a cavalry or a foot-soldier helmet, why does it bears a lion on it's top and so on.

Looking at this picture I wander whether it is really possible to give any more or less precise classification of that helmet?
And where might this be coming from?

Did really so many helmet-specific details survived or is it just an piece of art?

[agesilaos]

Yes,it is just a piece of art but, art based on the sarcophagos helmet. The artist has added the rear neck guard and peak, by analogy with surviving Thracian style helmets. The reality of the lion's head helmet could be doubted; I know there is a representation of an archer wearing one from the fifth century BC, presumably to identify him as Herakles and it may be that sort of artistic convention as opposed to reality playing on the sarcophagos. Helmets are normally designed to be smooth glancing surfaces Alexander's would catch the force of every weapon thrust at it!

[akop]

Helmets are normally designed to be smooth glancing surfaces Alexander's would catch the force of every weapon thrust at it!

Absolutely! And, consequently, the helmet should be replaced after every battle since even subtly scratched it would cease to create proper impression. It doesn't seems feasible that Alexander has a wardrobe stuffed with lion head helmets. To produce such a splendid piece of armor it would take a considerable amount of time and a decent blacksmith. To me if existed at all it is rather a part of ceremonial costume that Al might be using during his banquettes in order to imbue barbarians with rightful attitude to his personality.

But it is so beautiful .....

[rocktupac]

Helmets are normally designed to be smooth glancing surfaces Alexander's would catch the force of every weapon thrust at it!

Absolutely! And, consequently, the helmet should be replaced after every battle since even subtly scratched it would cease to create proper impression. It doesn't seems feasible that Alexander has a wardrobe stuffed with lion head helmets. To produce such a splendid piece of armor it would take a considerable amount of time and a decent blacksmith. To me if existed at all it is rather a part of ceremonial costume that Al might be using during his banquettes in order to imbue barbarians with rightful attitude to his personality.

But it is so beautiful .....

I agree. If Alexander did own a helmet as such it was probably for ceremonial purposes or to impress. The helmet he actually did wear does sound somewhat fancy, though: "he was conspicuous...by his helmet's crest, on either side of which was fixed a plume of wonderful size and whiteness" (Plutarch Alex. 16.7). But then again Plutarch only mentions that Alexander was identifiable because of his helmet's crest and the plumes on either side of the crest, and not the helmet itself.

[Taphoi]

The helmet he actually did wear does sound somewhat fancy, though: "he was conspicuous...by his helmet's crest, on either side of which was fixed a plume of wonderful size and whiteness" (Plutarch Alex. 16.7). But then again Plutarch only mentions that Alexander was identifiable because of his helmet's crest and the plumes on either side of the crest, and not the helmet itself.

The helmet mentioned by Plutarch may be that which Alexander is depicted wearing on the contemporaneous Porus medallions:



It looks like the Phrygian style with a tall central crest and [white] feathers either side.

Plutarch [Alex. 32.9] also says that Alexander's helm was of polished steel and made by Theophilos with a gorget of the same material decorated with gems.

Best wishes,

Andrew