The Etruscan identity.
Using helmet and breastplate styles as a proxy for the expression of identity by the
Etruscans
The Etruscan identity.
Using helmet and breastplate styles as a proxy for the expression of identity by the
Etruscans
BA Thesis Final Version Timothy van der Knaap
S0572233
Thesis Supervisor: Tymon de Haas
15-06-2019
University of Leiden, Faculty of Archaeology
Cover photo: decorated relief from parade chariot depicting a Corinthian type helmet and shield. Not included in thesis dataset due to late discovery. Third quarter of sixth century BC from Monteleone di Spoleto (Haynes 2000, 168).
Table of contents
Chapter 1. Introduction 4
1.1 Background 4
1.2 The Research Question 6
1.3 Methodology 7
1.4 Thesis Structure 7
Chapter 2. The Relation between Panoply and Identity 9 2.1 The Panoply in Modern Military Theory 9
2.1 The Ancient Sources 10
2.2 The Archaeological Sources 12
Chapter 3. Methodology 15
3.1 The Sources - Tombs 14
3.2 The Sources - Sanctuaries 15
3.3 The Dataset 18
3.4 Methodological Decisions 18
3.5 Limitations of the Data 20
Chapter 4. Helmet and Cuirass Types 21
4.1 The Helmets 21
4.2 The Cuirasses 39
Chapter 5. Developments in the Panoply 50
5.1 Chronological Changes in the Panoply 51 5.2 The Panoply in Relation to the Historical Narrative 55 5.3 The Etruscan Warrior and Rome 60 Chapter 6. The Panoply in a Geographic Perspective 63
6.1 Coast versus Inland Etruria 64
Chapter 7. Conclusion 68
Bibliography 71 Ancient Authors 74 Internet Pages 75 List of Figures 75 List of Tables 76 Appendix A Dataset 77 Appendix B Timeline 83
Introduction
1.1 Background
One has but to visit the older museum collections of italic bronzes to find evidence of the archaeological tradition of the pre-1960’s to identify specific archaeological cultures with the
presence of certain artifacts. While contemporary archaeology has more nuanced views on the use of guide artifacts, much of our terminology and typology still dates from this earlier period. One specific group of artifacts and their representations is especially notable for this, namely the bronze armour from Italy. Hence we see Samno-Attic and Etrusco-Thracian helmets, Samnite triple disc and Etruscan muscle cuirasses, and many others. The terminology of these armour types have obvious cultural implications, and remain generally unchallenged in the literature. Even in relatively recent
publications armour-types are still used as identifiers for certain culture groups. Notable in this is the identification of Samnite warriors on Campanian vase paintings, based primarily on the associated panoply of Samno-Attic helmets and Samnite triple-disc cuirasses (Schneider-Herrmann 1996). Even when a “Samnite” triple-disc cuirass is found in an Etruscan tomb in Vulci, its significance is easily dismissed as an exception arriving there through trade or booty (Cowan 2018, 749).
However awareness of the problems involved with tying armour to specific cultures has increased in recent years, as is evident from several recent publications (i.e. Schneider-Herrmann 1996, editor’s preface). This awareness may relate to a number of developments within the field of Mediterranean archaeology. One of these developments is a renewed focus on the local identities of populations, specifically those living within the sphere of influence of the traditionally considered dominant cultures of the classical period, Hellenistic and Roman. Significant attention has been given to evidence of persisting local identities within the Roman Empire and how and why these dual roman/native identities were maintained. Some suggested explanations include holding on to local identities as a form of resistance, or an outward expression of Roman identity for economic or political advantages (i.e. Woolf 1997; Mattingly 2004, 5-25). In addition to this, more recently the traditionally widely-used term ‘Romanization’ as a catch-all term to describe the process of how conquered native populations ‘became Roman’ has fallen out of favor with a number of scholars (Van Oyen 2015, 205-222).
How people identified themselves rather than how they were identified by either Greeks or Romans, or historians basing themselves on written sources, is an especially interesting topic within the context of the Etruscans. Probably the most researched archaeological culture in Italy after the Romans, the Etruscans have received a fair amount of scholarly attention since the 19th century. Despite this very little was actually known about them for a long time. Traditionally the Etruscans have been viewed as a very distinct culture from the rest of Italy for a number of reasons. For one the Etruscan language is quite distinct from the Latin and related Oscan languages spoken by what are considered native peoples of central and south Italy. Etruscan art and architecture differ in significant ways as well, as does the portrayed position of Etruscan women. Aside from their language, the most important reason for the traditional view of a distinct Etruscan identity comes from the ancient Roman sources. When Livy discusses the war on Veii and the Later Samnite wars, he generally presents the Etruscans as a relatively unified political entity opposing Rome united in an ‘Etruscan League’ (Livy 7.21). From Greek sources we get a similar impression. Inscriptions on votive helmets
dedicated by the Greeks of Cumae and Syracuse after the battle of Cumae (474BC) refer to a victory over the Tyrrhenians (Etruscans), and not over any specific city (D’Amato & Salimbeti 2018, 32). Already in ancient times the aforementioned differences prompted Roman and Greek historians to ponder on the origins of the Etruscans, with Herodotus suggesting an origin from West-Anatolia, Livy mentioning an origin north of the Alps and Dionysius suggesting an indigenous origin (Herodotus 1.94; Dionysius 1.17-19). Even the most modern DNA studies have been unable to provide a uniform answer (Ghirotto et al. 2013).
Since the last 15 years the field of Mediterranean archaeology has seen a renewed interest in research focused on the Etruscans, and due to this our knowledge of the Etruscans has been greatly improved in recent years. The traditional view of a ‘unified’ Etruscan world has been challenged as archaeological evidence has shown potentially significant differences in the social structures between different Etruscan cities. An example of this is the Etruscan city of Vulci of which only rich elite warrior burials are known, as opposed to the nearby city of Volsinii which combines rich elite warrior burials with a type of near-identical burials of a class of semi-hoplites (George 2018, 743-744). And while the exact status of the ‘Etruscan League’ as mentioned by Livy is still debated, strong cases have been made that this League had a religious function only and was not a military alliance (Gillett 2010, 1-7). Evidence from Etruscan disunity even comes from the ancient sources themselves, with both
Dionysius and Livy noting how the Etruscan city of Arretium (Arezzo) sided with both Latin cities and Rome against other Etruscan cities on various occasions.
Despite the renewed interest in the Etruscans, local differences between Etruscan cities have not yet been investigated well. In general despite the renewed focus on the Etruscans and the ‘native’ tribes of Italy, the Archaic and Early to Mid-Republic periods still hold many mysteries to contemporary archaeologists. In part this is because of the inherently very complicated situation of a plethora of different tribes and city states, many of which are only known to us due to Roman literary works. The success of Rome is another important factor, obscuring much of what was pre-Roman Italy. And while archaeologists and historians have been able to solve parts of the puzzle that is Iron Age Italy, much is still shrouded. Even for archaeological cultures that have received substantial attention from
researchers such as the Samnites, a seemingly simple question like ‘what exactly constitutes as a Samnite’ has proven very difficult to answer (Bradley et al. 2007, 179-183).
1.2 The Research Question
Etruscan warriors are quite commonly portrayed in various archaeological sources such as frescoes from tombs and friezes from temples. In addition to these more indirect sources the actual bronze Etruscan armour is relatively common in tombs of the Etruscan elite. All of these sources provide information on the panoply of the Etruscan warriors. The research question this thesis seeks to answer uses these sources as its basis, tying the visual information from these sources into the current archaeological interest in expressions of identity. How did the Etruscans visually present themselves through their armour and how can this presentation be interpreted within the context of identities?
The research question is answered through the following sub-questions:
• What were the developments in Etruscan armour between the 6th and 1st centuries BC?
• What are the most significant changes in the panoply, and can these be linked to larger events in Italy?
• How does the Etruscan warrior change after the Roman subjugation of the Etruscan territories?
• Based on the armour and portrayal of Etruscan warriors can any differences be discerned in the expression of identity on a local level within Etruria?
• Are there differences in depicted armour styles between different archaeological sources and if so how can this be explained?
Due to the limited scope of this BA thesis, the period to be investigated is set between the sixth and first second century BC. This period covers the entire archaic period up to the late Republic period and most of the major events in Etruscan history. From the adoption of Greek hoplite equipment and the height of Etruscan influence in Italy all the way through their ultimately catastrophic conflicts with Rome which would lead to the absorption of the Etruscan city states into the Roman Republic. The timeframe also covers some of the most significant military conflicts in Italy including the Samnite wars, the Gallic invasions and the Punic Wars. All of these events may have had an impact on the way the Etruscan presented themselves as warriors. The timeframe also covers the period of final
subjugation and integration of the last Etruscan city states by Rome, allowing us to investigate the influence of Roman power on the depictions of Etruscan warriors from this period.
For this thesis, by necessity only the helmets and cuirasses are investigated. While ideally the entire panoply should be taken into account, the limited scope of this thesis means such an approach is unfeasible. Instead of the entire panoply, helmets and breast armour are chosen as the subject of the study as they are the largest and most visible pieces of the panoply. These two types of artifacts are also reasonably well represented in the archaeological record. Quite importantly they are often identifiable on frescoes and vase paintings, as opposed to smaller pieces of armour such as bracers or belts. Shields could have been another viable part of the panoply to investigate, being both highly visible and often depicting emblems which may hold information on a potential display of identity. However the shields themselves are rare in the archaeological record and unlike helmets and breastplates their typology does not change as much over time. The aspis (round hoplite shield)
remains the dominant shield in use by the Etruscans throughout most of the period (D’Amato & Salimbeti 2018, 50-52). A study of Etruscan shields in the context of the research question of this thesis would then most likely have to focus almost exclusively on the depiction of shield emblems in frescoes and vase paintings. This was decided to be too time-consuming a task to include in this thesis.
1.3 Methodology
To answer all formulated research questions, a dataset of Etruscan artifacts which either are or depict helmets and cuirasses has to be extracted from the existing literature. Of specific note here is the work of J.M. Paddock whose comprehensive work on helmet typology from Italy provides the bulk of the data on bronze helmets used in this thesis (Paddock 1993).
The dataset will be at the core of the analyses required for this thesis. The objects in the dataset will allow for an extrapolation of which armour types are depicted or in use by the Etruscans by period and region. Of specific interest for our methodology is whether the various archaeological sources provide different or similar depictions of Etruscan armour. In the case of the former, this may be an indication that a particular source does perhaps not represent the actual panoply used by the Etruscans and cannot be directly compared to a different source.
After determining the representativity of the sources, chronological changes in armour typology can then be investigated further to potentially track local difference between the Etruscan regions or even cities in the depiction of their warriors or the armour finds. The next step will be to investigate potential large changes in armour typology set against the backdrop of major military and political events in Italy. This allows us to potentially tie changes in the depiction of the Etruscan warrior and the appearance of new armour styles into events that impacted the Etruscans, such as the Gallic invasion of the Po Valley in the 4th century BC or the Roman conquest of the last independent Etruscan cities in the 3rd century BC.
1.4 Thesis Structure
This thesis will have the following structure. Chapter two discusses the theoretical framework. The chapter seeks to explain why the premise of this thesis of linking the warrior’s panoply to the expression of identity is viable.
Chapter three focuses on the methodology. This chapter discusses the various archaeological sources from which the data comes, as well as the formation of the dataset and the decisions made prior to the data collection. It discusses the finalized dataset and how this data can be used to answer the research questions. The chapter also discusses the limitations of the dataset.
Chapter four is split in two parts. The first part discusses the typology of the helmets used by the Etruscans as is evident from our dataset while the second part discusses the cuirass types. The chapter provides basic information on the different helmet and cuirass types in use by the Etruscans.
Chapter five is the first chapter which discusses the results. The first part of this chapter presents a chronological overview of the changes in the Etruscan panoply apparent from the dataset. The second part of this chapter discusses the changes in relation to two significant historical events. The third part discusses the changes in the panoply during the Middle Republic Period when Etruria came under Roman control.
Chapter six is the second chapter which discusses the results. Potential differences in the panoply between the geographic areas of coastal and inland Etruria are examined and discussed, to determine whether there is any evidence of a differing expression of identity within Etruria.
Chapter seven presents the conclusions. The results from the previous chapters will be reiterated and the main research question will be answered. The conclusion ends with suggestions for further research.
Chapter 2. The Relation between Panoply and Identity
This chapter discusses the theoretical framework on which the premise of this thesis is based; that the panoply can be used as a proxy for the expression of identity. Within archaeology, using material culture to infer aspects of the behavior of past peoples is of course one of the core principles of the discipline and this thesis at its core attempts to do the same thing. Using modern military theory, passages from ancient authors and archaeological evidence this chapter attempts to show that the link between the expression of identity and warrior’s panoply is not just a concept applicable only to modern nation-state militaries, but viable for antiquity as well.
2.1 The Panoply in Modern Military Theory
Since the Second World War, group identity amongst soldiers has been given a significant amount of attention in military studies in an attempt to better understand and define the concept of unit cohesion. Unit cohesion, a term that is difficult to define but essentially encompasses how well a group of soldiers function together, is seen as one of the most important factors in the performance of soldiers in battle. The exact definition is complicated and the subject of many studies, but group identity always plays a significant role. Recent research from MacCoun and Hix (2016, 101-102) for example discusses the concepts of vertical and horizontal cohesion. Horizontal cohesion is
predominantly about the bonds between soldiers. This horizontal cohesion consists of task-based cohesion and social cohesion, which can include ethnic identification, marital status, social
background and various other aspects. Vertical cohesion as opposed to horizontal cohesion consists of the bonds across ranks, and includes facets such as the soldier’s confidence in the army leadership, personal loyalty to officers and a shared sense of commitment.
Related to this is the assessment by military research that in modern militaries homogeneity in equipment, specifically the uniform, has a direct relation with the soldier’s performance adding to the soldiers' sense of camaraderie, cohesion, and esprit de corps (Krueger 2012, 64-78). According to the Handbook of Military Psychology a strong vertical cohesion is directly related to a visible pride of the uniform and unit crest (Manning 1991, 464-466).
Although these concepts are all based on modern militaries, the general ideas have been applied to ancient military studies as well. The Roman soldier’s identification with and commitment to the army and his own unit specifically has been suggested to be at the core of the effectiveness of the Roman army (Lee 1996, 207). The effectiveness of the Greek phalanx has been suggested to lie with the confidence that was the result of the strong social bonds amongst hoplites (Hanson 1989, 117-118). The idea of a level of homogeneity in the equipment of ancient armies has also been projected on the ancient world, reinforced by our familiarity of soldiers in uniform that have made up the bulk of western armies for the past three hundred years. For ancient armies however there is little evidence that such uniformity in the warrior panoply existed until Marius’ reforms of 107BC after which the Roman state became responsible for supplying the lower classes with military equipment. Drawing a link between the warrior’s panoply as a source of socio-political pride and thus group identity is therefore quite difficult. However there is some evidence that there was some form of uniformity in equipment in the centuries prior to Marius’ reforms and that the panoply can in fact function as an expression of group identity.
2.2 The Ancient Sources
A number of ancient writers have revealed the familiarity of the ancient world with the concept that elements of the panoply can function as both sources of pride and express identity. They also provide some clues on the level of standardization in equipment.
The first of these authors is Xenophon of Athens (431 – 354 BC). In his work Hellenica which describes events in Greece between 411 and 362 BC two passages stand out:
“But Pasimachos, the Lakedaimonian commander of horse, at the head of a few horsemen, when he saw the Sikyonians hard pressed, tied his horses to trees, took from the fleeing Sikyonians their shields, and advanced with a volunteer force against the Argives. The Argives, however, seeing the Sigmas upon the shields, did not fear these opponents at all, thinking that they were Sikyonians. Then, as the story goes, Pasimachos said: “By the twin gods, Argives, these Sigmas will deceive you,” and engaged them; and fighting thus with a few against many he was killed, along with those with him.”
Xen., Hell. 4.4.10
“When Epameinondas gave his army the last order to make ready, saying that there would be a battle, the horsemen eagerly whitened their helmets at his command, the hoplites of the Arkadians painted clubs upon their shields, as though they were Thebans, and all alike sharpened their spears and daggers and burnished their shields.”
Xen., Hell.7.5.20
Xenophon provides us with some of the earliest written sources that indicate both uniformity and identity associated with equipment in Classical Greece. From these passages detailing events between 411 and 359 BC it is clear that both the Sikyonians and Thebans used specific emblems painted on their shields to identify themselves. When the Spartans took the shields from the fleeing Sikyonians they also took their identity, tricking the Argives into committing to the fight.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (60BC – 7AD) in his major work Roman Antiquities provides a historical narrative from the foundation of Rome until the start of the First Punic War. The next two passage are especially informative in relation to this thesis:
“… For the most influential men from all Tyrrhenia had joined them with their dependents, with the result that the Tyrrhenians' army was not a little larger than that of the Romans. When the consuls saw the numbers of the enemy and the lustre of their arms, great fear came upon them lest, with their own forces rent by faction, they might not be able to prevail when arrayed against the harmonious forces of the enemy…”
Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 9.5.4
This passage from Dionysius describing events during the war with Veii (483-476 BC) is informative as it both provides a clue on the structure of the Etruscan army as well as the familiarity of either the
author or his sources with the importance of cohesion. Dionysius states three reasons for the Roman reluctance to fight the Etruscan army; larger numbers, quality (lustre) of arms and a cohesive
(harmonious) force. Internal strife within the roman republic on the other hand led to a reduced vertical cohesion within the Roman army. Of further interest is the mention of the Etruscan army consisting of ‘influential men’ with their dependents. This implies a gentes - clientes organization of the Etruscan military of which there is also evidence in the archaeological record.
“But Falerii and Fescennium were even down to my day inhabited by Romans and preserved some small remains of the Pelasgian nation, though they had earlier belonged to the Sicels. In these cities there survived for a very long time many of the ancient customs formerly in use among the Greeks, such as the fashion of their arms of war, like Argolic bucklers and spears…”
Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 1.21.1
In the most important passage of Dionysius in relation to this thesis, the author draws a direct link between a part of the warrior’s panoply and identity. Even in the Augustan period when Dionysius wrote his Roman Antiquities, over 200 years after the destruction of Falerii (we can assume Dionysius refers to Falerii Novi, to which the Faliscan survivors of the Roman conquest were resettled) the people living there were according to Dionysius still using their traditional and by that time outdated panoply. The author specifically mentions the Aspis (Argive bucklers); the traditional hoplite shields used in Etruria by the Etruscans. While Dionysus may have had a specific agenda of bringing the supposed Hellenistic roots of the various cultures of Italy to the foreground, the fact that he evidently associated specific elements of the panoply with specific local customs is in itself significant. It shows that the association of the panoply with group identity existed and is not just a modern concept that was unfamiliar to the ancient world.
More evidence of the importance of the panoply in relation to identity comes from Livy (59BC - 17AD) who in his sole surviving work Urbe Condita Libri writes:
“To the cohorts which had lost their standards he ordered barley to be issued, and as for the centurions of the maniples whose standards had been lost, he made them stand aside with drawn swords and no belts; and he ordered that on the morrow they should all, infantry and cavalry, present themselves under arms.”
Livy, Ab urbe cond. 27.13.9
In this passage describing events taking place during the Second Punic War, Livy describes the practice of removal of the military belt as a disciplinary measure in the Roman army. Clearly the belt must have held meaning and its removal as punishment a significant humiliation. Further examples of the strong meaning of the military belt as symbol of the identity of a soldier are given by Stefanie Hoss (2012, 29-30) and include passages from Plutarch and Suetonius.
From all these written sources it is evident that identity and the warrior’s panoply were in some cases linked. Additionally, a level of uniformity in the panoply is also implied. Be it through similar emblems on the shields of at least some of the city-states’ hoplites of Classical Greece, or through the use of a specific type of shield by the inhabitants of the region near Falerii and Fescennium.
2.3 The Archaeological Sources
Archaeological examples of the link between identity and elements of the warrior’s panoply come from two contexts dating to the Punic wars. The first example concerns several Montefortino helmets decorated two of the naval rams from Roman warships sunk in 241 BC and recovered near the Egadi Islands. While the exact symbolism of the helmets on the rams is not known, the Montefortino helmets must have held some particular meaning to the Romans to warrant such a prominent place on their warships (Taylor 2017, 280).
The second example is Entella tablet IV, an inscribed bronze tablet found at Entella (Sicily) and dated to just after the First Punic War. The tablet details a proxeny decree, an arrangement where foreign ambassadors are hosted at the expense of a private citizen, in which the people of Entella (Sicily) honor the Roman official Tiberius Claudius of Antium by incising a Montefortino helmet (Taylor 2017, 280). It is a further example of how parts of the military panoply can be closely linked to identity. Here we see that the originally Celtic Montefortino helmet, adopted by both the Etruscans and the Romans, had become so closely associated with the Romans that the inhabitants choose to decorate that particular helmet type to honor Rome. Evidently this type of helmet was not only strongly associated with the Roman soldier but had become a symbol of the Roman state itself.
From an Etruscan context, two archaeological finds stand out, as both are strongly connected to identity and homogeneity of the panoply. The first is the Vetulonia helmet hoard. Found in 1905 in a ditch near the walls of the acropolis of Vetulonia, the hoard consists of 125 distorted and battered Negau-type helmets (see chapter 4). The hoard is very poorly published, and only short references of its existence appear in contemporary literature (George 2018, 739; Haynes 2000, 265). Dated to the early fifth century BC, at least fifty-five of the helmets have been inscribed with the gentilicial name
hapnas. This seems to confirm Dionysius’ mention of the ‘most influential men of Etruria and their
dependents’ (Dionysius Roman Antiquities 9.5, see chapter 2.1). It appears these helmets had been commissioned by the Hapnas gens and most likely would have been used to equip their dependents for war. The sheer quantity of the Vetulonia hoard also implies a distinct level of uniformity in the panoply of these lower class Etruscan warriors.
The second Etruscan example was found at Olympia, Greece. In 474 BC, a significant naval battle took place between a coalition of the Greek city-states of Cumae in Campania and Syracuse in Sicily and the Etruscans over hegemony of the southern Tyrrhenian Sea and the Gulf of Naples. Which Etruscans were involved in this battle is not known, but they must have been one or more of the larger Etruscan cities situated near the coast. Perhaps it was the city of Cerveteri based on a lull in building activity in the trading post of Pyrgi (a dependent of Cerveteri) in the period directly after 474BC, which was followed by the construction of a new large temple. Construction of this temple broke with the Greek tradition of earlier temples perhaps implying a form of anti-Greek sentiment (Haynes 2000, 178). Regardless of the exact Etruscan cities involved, the outcome was a disaster for the Etruscans. The Greek coalition routed or destroyed the Etruscan fleet, and the battle of Cumae is often cited as the catalyst for the Etruscan decline in the fifth century BC.
Tantalizing evidence of the battle of Cumae was found in 1817 as three Etruscan helmets were recovered at Olympia. There the victorious Greek Tyrant Hiero I of Syracuse had dedicated these helmets in the sanctuary of Zeus. Two of the helmets are of the Negau type (figure 1). The third is a Corinthian type. One of the Negau type helmets and the Corinthian helmet both have inscriptions on
the bowl that translate 'Hieron, son of Deinomenes, and the Syracusans, [dedicated] to Zeus Etruscan
[spoils] from Cumae' (Haynes 2000, 261-262).
Again we see the same type of helmet as from the Vetulonia hoard, the Negau type, but this time from the context of an actual battle. This further reinforces the sense that perhaps there existed a certain level of homogeneity within the Etruscan panoply. It is tempting to see the single more embellished Corinthian type as the helmet of a leading aristocrat or officer, while the much simpler Negau type could have been worn by the rank and file soldiers. In terms of identity, it is clear that these helmets were strongly associated with the Etruscans by the Greeks.
Whether the Etruscans themselves also identified in some way with these helmet types is of course far harder to determine. However if we consider these Etruscan examples, as well as the
aforementioned Roman examples and literary sources, it becomes clear that linking identity with elements of the warrior’s panoply is not an alien concept to the Ancient world. Thus using the panoply to investigate potential differences in the expression of identity could be fruitful to some extent.
Figure 1. Inscribed Negau type helmet. From Olympia. Early fifth century BC. (British Museum, London, inv. 1823,0610.1 https://www.britishmuseum.org)
Chapter 3. Methodology
To answer all formulated research questions, an extensive dataset consisting of bronze armour finds as well as any objects that portray Etruscan warriors had to be extracted from the literature. This chapter first discusses the various archaeological sources used. Then the methodological decisions are discussed. This is followed by a summary of the resulting dataset. Finally the limitations of the data are discussed.
3.1 The Sources - Tombs
The geographic region of ancient Etruria was roughly defined by the Tyrhennian coast to the west, the river Tiber to the south and east and the river Arno and western Apennines to the north (Wiman 2018, 11). The landscape of Etruria is made up of hills separated by fertile valleys and plains, with a few low mountains located exclusively in the north. Etruria is also rich in metals with availability of both copper and tin, the base metals required for bronze (Bernadini 2004, 29; Giardino 2018, 724). The region of Etruria proper is divided in a southern and northern part. The border between these regions is formed by the rivers Paglia and Fiora (Patterson et al. 2004, 11). The north and south are distinct from one another in several ways, the most impactful being the differing bedrock; South Etruria is rich in volcanic tufa-rock, while in north Etruria the bedrock consists predominantly of limestone and sandstone, both much harder stones than tufa. This difference in natural resources available to the Etruscans inhabiting these regions has led to a divergence in the construction of the more monumental types of tombs. Those tombs located in the tufa-rich areas in the south could be carved directly in the soft tufa-rock (although local differences in tomb construction are evident throughout Etruria) while tombs in north Etruria had to be constructed from lime- or sandstone slabs or blocks (Haynes 2000, 72). This difference in material used in tomb construction also led to a differing tradition in tomb decoration: the smooth tufa walls of the tombs in South Etruria were better suited for the painting of frescoes while the much rougher interior walls of tombs in North Etruria were not. This led to a tradition of rich fresco decorations in the south (Haynes 2000, 88). While frescoes do exist in tombs from north Etruria, as a whole they are much rarer.
Etruscan tombs differ greatly in type depending on the geography of the area, social class of the deceased as well as the period. In Etruria during the late Orientalizing period the lower classes were buried in trench burials, while the elite was generally buried in chamber tombs covered by tumuli (Haynes 2000 71-72). In the Archaic period simpler and more uniform tombs appear but with
substantial local variety; rectangular cube tombs at Cerveteri, cassone tombs (chest-shaped tombs) at Vulci and aedicula tombs (tombs in the form of a small house) at Populonia (Haynes 2000, 142-165).
Armour
The most telling artifacts from tombs related to the warrior’s panoply are without doubt the actual bronze armour pieces. A relatively common grave gift found in Etruscan tombs, especially helmets are well represented with for example 112 Negau type helmets listed by Paddock in his Italian helmet survey, most of which are likely from an Etruscan burial context. Unfortunately the vast majority of these helmets has been excavated in previous centuries and is of unknown provenance or date.
In our dataset the vast majority of helmet entries can be traced to a burial context. The only examples clearly associated with a ritual context were the large hoard of ritually destroyed Negau-type
helmets from Vetulonia (Haynes 2000, 265) and three helmets deposited near the Greek sanctuary at Olympia where they had been dedicated after the Greek victory at Cumae over the Etruscans in 474BC (D’Amato & Salimbeti 2018, 32). The distribution is spread across the necropolises of Etruria and beyond with examples from the sixth until the end of the third century BC. No examples of known provenance could be found dating after 200BC.
Cuirasses are far rarer than the helmets in tombs, with only 6 examples in our dataset with a known provenance & date. One possible reason for this is implied by the many depictions on frescoes and stone urns of so-called composite armour, a type mainly made from linen or leather. These organic armours would not have stood the test of time and from the whole of Italy there is only a single reference of (parts of) a linen cuirass recovered from a tomb at Vulci (Stary 1979, 198).
Sarcophagi & Cinerary Urns
A common element not only in the tufa hewn tombs of south Etruria but also in the necropolises of north Etruria such as the necropolis at Volterra, Etruscan sarcophagi are made from either local stone such as tufa, alabaster or limestone or alternatively made from terracotta. They are shaped as a rectangular box with panels which depict various scenes. The lid can depict the deceased as either a miniaturized or life-sized version depending on the size of the sarcophagus or urn. In general there is a trend where the cinerary urns and sarcophagi become simpler over time, but at the same time more common. This has in the past been interpreted as a sign of the deteriorating situation for the Etruscans as the Romans asserted themselves at the cost of the Etruscans (Nielsen 2018, 180). A number of the urns and sarcophagi display scenes of battle or individual warriors, usually drawn from Greek mythology. Other themes commonly present on the sarcophagi are funerary scenes, dramatic literature, local stories and biographical representations (Nielsen 2018, 185-186). Like Frescoes and vase paintings, which typically depict similar mythological scenes, the panoply worn by the warriors on the sarcophagi is distinctly Etruscan. One advantage the sculpted scenes from the sarcophagi and urns bring over the painted scenes from walls and vases is that they have physical depth, giving a better idea of the actual shapes of the armour depicted.
Frescoes & vase paintings
As mentioned, in north Etruria, the absence of natural tufa has resulted in a burial tradition which typically does not include fresco decorations in tombs. It is a sharp contrast to tufa-rich south Etruria where the vast majority of tomb frescoes are found. In the south of this region we find the
necropolises of Cerveteri and Veii, while the most northern examples of painted tombs are from Populonia in the northwest and Chiusi in the northeast (Steingräber 2006, 13). Roughly eighty percent of the known tomb frescoes hail from 6 necropolises: the necropolises of Veii, Cerveteri, Vulci, Orvieto, Chiusi and Monterozzi near Tarquinia (Steingräber 2006, 9).
Tomb frescoes from Etruria are known from the second quarter of the seventh century until roughly the end of the third century BC, but the majority falls between the late sixth and early fifth century BC (Steingräber 2006, 9). This is reflected in the dataset as well, seven out of twelve frescoes fall within this period.
A small number of vase paintings have also been included in this category. Hampered by the difficulty of distinguishing Greek imports from Etruscan-made vessels, only three examples were used in the dataset. Two of these (P13 and P14) from Vulci and Tarquinia are attributed to the Etruscan Micali painter. The third (P15) is an olpe (jug) from Vulci in the Etrusco-Corinthian technique implying an Etruscan origin.
3.2 The Sources - Sanctuaries
Similar to tombs in this regard, Etruscan sanctuaries greatly differ between one another and no two sanctuaries are alike. Broadly speaking three main types have been identified; urban sanctuaries located in or close to cities, extra-urban sanctuaries located outside of cities and rural sanctuaries (similar to extra-urban, but solely related to agriculture or animal husbandry). Etruscan sanctuaries can range from large temple complexes such as the Portonaccio temple at Veii to small places for votive offering. (Edlund-Berry 2018, 560-562)
Bronze Votive Statues
The Etruscans created thousands of small bronze statues, found in both burial and ritual contexts. They could either be stand-alone votive offerings, or be part of tableware or utensils as decoration. Although many hundreds of such statues have been recovered, collections generally date to the 19th century and the provenance of the vast majority of these is unknown. The Etruscan bronze statues have been the focus of many typological studies, which have attempted to provide an overview of the stylistic changes that occur over time (ex. Colonna 1970, Haynes 1985, Cristofani 1984, Galestin 1987) but the origin of most remains as vague as ‘Central-Italy based on style’. For this reason in the dataset only ten of these bronze statues depicting warriors are included, all of which come from a votive context. This includes the famous ‘Mars from Todi’; a freestanding warrior statue measuring 1m70 depicting the Etruscan god of war Laran (Galestin 1987, 139).
Architectural Remains
From a number of temple sanctuaries come depictions of warriors in either terracotta or stone. From the Sassi Caduti temple at Falerii Veteres we have part of the acroterium depicting a warrior wearing a Corinthian helmet and muscle cuirass (S19). From the Portonaccio temple at Veii comes the head of a statue of a warrior wearing an Italo-Chalcidian helmet (S27). From the Etruscan temple at Talamone comes a temple frieze depicting several warriors in varying panoply (S14). Although rare compared to the depictions in stone from tombs, such temple elements still aid in providing a more complete picture of the warrior panoply.
3.3 The Dataset
The resulting dataset (Appendix A) consists of 97 separate entries split over 4 categories (Table 1). The first category is Armour (43 entries). This category contains the actual bronze helmets (H1-H37) and cuirasses (C1-C6). Most of the bronze armour can be attributed to a burial context. A number of bronze helmets cannot be linked directly to tombs due to their exact origins not being mentioned in detail in the literature. It is likely however that most if not all of these objects originate from tombs as well.
The second category is Bronze Miscellaneous Objects. This category includes 12 entries (M1-M12). The Bronze Misc. Objects category covers predominantly small bronze statues, with a single
decorated bronze mirror forming the exception. The bronze statues are mainly associated with votive offerings, while the mirror is most likely a tomb find. The category depicts a total of 10 helmets and 8 cuirasses.
The third category is Stone & Terracotta Objects which consists of 27 entries (S1-S27). The objects within this category include elements associated with Etruscan sanctuaries (5 entries) such as temple friezes and pediments, as well as objects from a tomb context (22 entries) namely sarcophagi and urns. A total of 23 helmets and 19 cuirasses are represented within this category.
The final category is Paintings (15 entries, P1-P15). The Paintings category includes frescoes (13 entries) and vase paintings (2 entries).A total of 15 different helmets and 10 cuirasses are depicted within this category (Table 1).
Table 1. Helmets and cuirasses represented within each category of the dataset.
3.4
Methodological Decisions
Initially it was deemed necessary to gauge the amount of potential data available in order to decide whether the research questions could be answered in the first place. For this a literary survey was carried out to gain a rough sense of the amount of data available. This initial survey collected every source of data related to the warrior’s panoply and described as ‘Etruscan’ in the literature without looking in-depth into provenance or date. The results were promising, with a far larger amount of collected data than anticipated: over three hundred separate entries. However as this initial dataset had not yet been filtered, the amount of usable data would end up significantly smaller.
With the amount of data available seemingly more than sufficient the final dataset could then be established with the data from the initial survey. Such a dataset has to be of both sufficient quantity and quality in order to be functional for analysis. It was therefore necessary to establish a number of
Category Represented object Bronze
Armour Bronze Misc. Objects Stone & Terracotta Objects Paintings Total
Helmets 37 10 23 15 85
Cuirasses 6 8 19 10 43
criteria the data had to comply with in order to be admitted into the final dataset. These criteria were determined by the research questions of this thesis.
First it was important to establish that any source of data was eligible for the dataset. This was done to both gain as much data as possible, as well as open the way to compare differences and similarities between the different sources such as warrior portrayal on frescoes as opposed to votive bronze statues. The result was a spread of objects in the dataset from sources ranging from the actual bronze helmets and breastplates from tombs, to bronze statues from votive deposits, to architectural elements and paintings depicting warriors. These sources can usually be attributed to either a burial context or a religious context, although these are intertwined within Etruscan culture (Edlund-Berry 2018, 561).
Since this thesis focuses exclusively on how the Etruscans looked on the battlefield and portrayed themselves as warriors in the archaeological sources, a known Etruscan context for the objects was paramount in order to be able to draw any viable conclusions. This meant for the dataset only objects with a known Etruscan provenance were accepted. This decision shrunk the available data
considerably, as a substantial part of Etruscan bronze collections in museums described in the literature dates from the 19th century. Very few objects from such collections are of known
provenance, as most are attributed to the Etruscans based solely on stylistic aspects. The issue with such objects without provenance in regards to this thesis is that it is difficult to judge now whether objects were originally associated with an Etruscan context. Perhaps the objects were made and used by non-Etruscans who copied the Etruscan style, perhaps they were made by the Etruscans and traded away, or perhaps they were indeed used by Etruscans. Additionally, even if some of such objects can reliably be attributed to the Etruscans, the unknown find spot and suspect date means such objects would hold little value for the examination of any potential local differences in the warrior panoply between Etruscan cities or regions or even basic chronological comparisons. For these reasons such objects had to be excluded from the dataset.
The third criterion for our dataset is the necessity for an established date for the objects. Since this thesis aims to investigate changes in the Etruscan panoply over time it is of importance to have at the very least a rough date associated with the objects. This unfortunately further shrunk the available data as it turned out a significant amount of objects had either no date listed in the literature, or an extremely broad date of several centuries. In fact only a handful of objects have a secure date, with most objects being dated to at best a timeframe of within half a century by association with the ceramics found within the same context. To strike a balance between quantity and quality, only objects with a date resolution of at least a century have been accepted into the dataset. While a century is still a very long period, many styles of armour were in fact in use or portrayed for much longer making such broad dates still useable.
The fourth criterion only applies to one of the sources, the vase paintings. Here lies a complication in that a significant part of the painted pottery from Etruscan tombs is imported ware from Greece. Such vases are likely to depict Greek rather than Etruscan warriors. For this reason only vases attributed to a known Etruscan workshop have been accepted into the dataset. Naturally it is still debatable whether such ‘copied’ vases would actually depict Etruscans and not simply the original Greek examples. But at the very least it is more likely that depictions from Etruscan pottery
Another methodological decision relates to the terminology of the armour typology. Unfortunately such is the case that many authors have their own terminology for the types and sub-types of both helmet- and cuirass types from Italy. Quite often a different typology is used between authors to describe the same types or different authors use the same typology to describe quite different helmet types. Here the typology proposed by Paddock (1993) is followed for all helmet types except for his Samno-Attic type, for which I have elected to instead use the much more commonly used term Italo-Attic. Subtypes have been omitted from this thesis due to the great difficulty of accurately identifying subtypes in most of the sources other than the bronze helmets themselves.
3.5 Limitations of the Data
The dataset constructed for this thesis has several limitations. Foremost the dataset does not represent a complete survey of all examples of helmet and chest armour types from Etruscan sources. It is likely examples have been missed because they are either not well published or I have simply overlooked them. The data therefore represents only a selection of the available material and is not well suited for a very exact analysis of which type of armour appeared in which period. Adding to this is the uncertainty of the dating. In many cases dating is rounded to a whole century or more, and only a handful of examples have been securely dated. For this reason the date-ranges attributed to armour-types in this thesis should be taken only as a broad indication. Of final note is the
quantification of the data. For the graphs used in this thesis the quantity of depictions of armour types is not considered, meaning a single depiction of an Italo-Attic type helmet dated to the third century BC has the same weight as fifty depictions of the same. In those cases where there is only a single depiction of a type or an exceptionally large amount of depictions, this is mentioned in the text corresponding with the graphs.
This chapter will provide a typological overview of the different helmet and cuirass types found within the dataset. In the period between the sixth and first century BC at least nine main helmet types have been identified in the Italic peninsula based on the actual bronze finds (Paddock 1993). A number of additional helmet types are known only from depictions on frescoes, vases or votive statues. The exact typology of the helmets differs from author to author, as does the use of various sub-types. As mentioned in Chapter 3 I have elected to follow where possible the typology used by Paddock in his study of Italian helmets (Paddock 1993).
4.1 The Helmets
The dataset of this thesis includes eleven helmet types from an Etruscan context. These include examples of all the bronze helmet types found in Italy as described by Paddock, except for the two very latest types which only occur in a Roman context from the first century BC or later; the Coolus and Hagenau types. The remaining four helmet types from our database that are not discussed by Paddock are the Phrygian-type, the Boeotian-type, the Insular/ Illyrian-type and the Corinthian-type.
The Corinthian type
The Corinthian type (figure 2) originates from mainland Greece, where it was developed as early as 700BC. It is the iconic type of helmet commonly associated with the archetypical hoplites of the Greek city states in the classical period (Prag et al. 2008, 206). Through Magna Graecia this type of helmet was introduced to the Italian peninsula where it was adopted by the South Italic peoples, as well as by the Etruscans by the end of the seventh century BC. To differentiate between the Greek- and Italian-made Corinthian helmets, the latter are sometimes described as Italo-Corinthian.
However the term Italo-Corinthian is also used to indicate a completely different helmet type and it is difficult to determine whether a Corinthian helmet was imported from Greece or locally made (Paddock 1993, 38).
There are many variants of the Corinthian helmet, in part due to these helmets being made to measure, in part due to local traditions. All of them have in common that they are full faced helmets, protecting both head and face. The form has relatively small, leaf-shaped eye slots, a nose-guard in relief and pronounced cheek-guards separated from each other by a vertical slit. The Etruscans manufactured the Corinthian helmet from hammered bronze sheet in two parts while the Greek original was manufactured out of a single piece (Prag et al. 2008, 206). Later Etruscan versions were cast and then hammered (D’Amato & Salimbeti 2018).
The Corinthian helmet is commonly portrayed in late seventh to fifth century Etruscan vase paintings and frescoes, and several bronze examples have been recovered from Etruscan tombs. The close association with hoplite combat of the Corinthian helmet in combination with other elements from the hoplite panoply being depicted in Etruscan art, has resulted in scholars making the assumption that the Etruscans adopted hoplite tactics during the last quarter of the seventh century BC. However the social patron-client structure of Etruscan culture as known to us from various Roman sources (i.e. Dionysius 9.54) does not fit with the polis citizen ideal which is required for the hoplite phalanx to function (Rawlings 2009, 109-110). There have been suggestions that the Corinthian helmet was used
in a ceremonial role. However this seems unlikely as the helmets are commonly portrayed in scenes of battle, and at least one Corinthian helmet found can be directly linked to an actual battle.
Figure 2. Etruscan Corinthian-type, 474 BC, from Olympia, Greece. H5. (D’Amato & Salimbeti 2018, 32)
The Apulo-Corinthian type (figure 3) is an Italian adaptation of the Corinthian type which originated in Apulia, South Italy. Also known under a number of other names such as Pseudo-Corinthian,
Etrusco-Corinthian, and most commonly Italo-Corinthian (confusingly also sometimes used to indicate Italian-made Corinthian helmets). It is one of the few Iron Age helmet types from Italy that can be considered an Italian design, despite being based on the Greek Corinthian type. According to Paddock the Apulo-Corinthian form emerged in the last quarter of the 6th century B.C. and remained in use to at least the end of the 4th century BC. However a depiction of this helmet type on a stone slab of departing warriors from Veii indicates its existence in the early 6th century BC already (D’Amato & Salimbeti 2018, 48). This indicates the Apulo-Corinthian type was introduced to the Etruscans relatively shortly after the introduction of the Corinthian type.
The early Apulo-Corinthian helmets share similar features with the Corinthian helmet; leaf-shaped eye slots, a nose-guard in relief and extended cheek-guards. However the base-shape of the helmet is such that it resembles a cap rather than a full-faced helmet; they were intended to be worn pushed back upon the head instead of covering the face. Over time, the Corinthian features of the helmet become less pronounced in roughly five phases, indicated as type A-E by Bottini (1990).
Type A has identical features to the Corinthian type; open leaf-shaped eye slots, a nose-guard and separated cheek-guards.
Type B is as type A but the cheek-guards are joined together in one or more places by a bridge. Type C is as type B but the cheek-guards are completely joined together
Type D only has the open eyes from the previous subtypes, with the shape of the nose- and cheek-guards incised
Figure 3. Apulo-Corinthian type. 350-300BC, from Etruria. H1. (British Museum, London, inv. 1856,1226.697 https://www.britishmuseum.org)
The Negau type helmet (figure 4), named after one of its find spots in Slovenia, is a type of ‘pot’ helmet. Two subtypes are known from Etruria, the earlier Volterra-type and the later Vetulonia-type. Both types consist of a rather bulbous bowl while the lower part of the helmet is circumvented by a pronounced brow-ridge. In the later Vetulonia-type, the bowl is more angled so that the two lateral halves of the bowl form a medial point or ridge. Paddock also defines a third subtype, which is a South Italian adaptation of the Vetulonia-subtype differentiated by its taller bowl.
Traditionally considered an Etruscan invention (Paddock 1993, 174) the development process of the Negau form indicates a more complicated situation. Cowan describes the development of the Negau type as follows (Cowan 2018, 750-751).
In the first half of the seventh century BC the first pot helmet was developed in Vetulonia. This Vetulonia-type pot helmet formed the prototype of later Central-Italian pot helmets. The Picenes adapted the Vetulonia-type into several subsequent types; the Montegiorgio Piceno-type was the first, adding helmet bosses to the bowl. This type developed into the Montelparo-type during the first half of the sixth century, which has embossed decorations and a waist between bowl and rim. In the mid-sixth century the Montelparo-type then developed into the Belmonte-type. The
Belmonte-type is the first type that can be considered a Negau helmet, including the medial ridge and eyebrow rim typical of the later Vetulonia-type Negau helmet though still maintaining the waist between bowl and rim of the Montelparo-type which is absent from the later Negau helmets. The Etruscans adapted the Belmonte-type and created the Voltera-type during the third quarter of the sixth century, losing both the medial ridge and waist between bowl and rim. From the end of the sixth century the Vetulonia-type Negau helmet is introduced, regaining the medial ridge of the Belmonte-type.
The Italo-Chalcidian type
The Chalcidian-type (named after the city of Chalcis from where it was originally believed it
originated) is an assumed Greek adaptation of the Corinthian helmet. It was developed somewhere in the early-sixth century BC from the Corinthian-type, improving on certain limitations of the
Corinthian-type. The Chalcidian-type (figure 5) is in shape reminiscent of the Corinthian type, but incorporates cut-outs for the ears, cheek-guards that are further apart, as well as larger eye-slots. This results in a more open-face helmet than the Corinthian-type. Most Chalcidian-type helmets have cheek-guards made from the same piece as the bowl, but examples exist with hinged cheek-guards. Nose-guards are present but can be rudimentary.
The Chalcidian-type was presumably introduced in Italy through the Greek city states of Magna Graecia in the late sixth century and like the Corinthian-type was quickly adopted and locally made (Paddock 1993, 265-266). However it has been suggested by a number of scholars that the
Chalcidian-type may originate from South-Italy instead (Paddock 1993, 266). The Chalcidian helmets from Italy are traditionally referred to as Italo-Chalcidian.
As with the Corinthian helmet, there are many variations within the Italo-Chalcidian type. This Chalcidian-type is also very similar to the Attic-type making them difficult to distinguish, which is further hampered by the lack of an accepted definition of the type.
Figure 5. Italo-Chalcidian type, 450-400BC from Perugia. H14. (D’Amato & Salimbeti 2018, 32)
The Attic-type (figure 6) is a further development of the Chalcidian-type and is known in Italy from the fifth century BC until the first century AD (Paddock 1993, 400). Attic helmets from Italy are commonly referred to as either Italo-Attic, Osco/Samno-Attic or Etrusco-Attic with different authors employing different definitions. For example Deligiannis groups all Attic helmets from Italy under Italo-Attic, with Osco-Attic, Apulo-Attic and Etrusco-Attic as subtypes (Deligiannis 2013, 2). Paddock on the other hand refers to all Attic helmets from Italy as Samno-Attic based on the close association of the type with the Samnites (Paddock 1993, 400). Sekunda refers to all Attic helmets from Italy as Italo-Attic (Sekunda et al. 1995, 40). Here Sekunda’s terminology is followed to prevent confusion with subtypes and avoid the strong cultural implication of the term Samno-Attic.
The Italo-Attic helmet is very similar to the Italo-Chalcidian form. The type has a low bowl with a medial ridge which in some examples is modified into a crest-holder. At the base of the bowl a brow-band is fitted, often with embossed eye-brows. The brow-band has cut-outs for the ears and forms into a neck-guard at the back of the helmet. In some examples the brow-band forms a large visor-shaped embossed diadem on the front of the helmet. The nose-guard from the Chalcidian type is absent in the Italo-Attic type. The cheek-guards are hinged and of bicuspid shape.
To differentiate between the Italo-Chalcidian-type and the Italo-Attic type Paddock’s definition followed which states that Attic helmets do not have nose-guards and have hinged cheek-pieces in bicuspid form (Paddock 1993, 267). Additionally the visor-shaped embossed diadem of certain Italo-Attic helmets does not appear in the Italo-Chalcidian type.
Figure 6. Italo-Attic type, 325-300BC from Tarquinia ‘Amazons Sarcophagus’. P4. (D’Amato & Salimbeti 2018, 46)
The Etrusco-Thracian type
The Etrusco-Thracian type (figure 7) is a difficult helmet form due to the many different names given to this type by various authors over time. In older literature it is most commonly referred to as the Jockey Cap type, but terminology varies and the helmet type is also occasionally labeled as Attic-type. Derived from the Thracian-type helmets from Greece, Paddock settles for the name Etrusco-Thracian based on the relatively large number of helmets from this type found in Etruria, and a comparatively very small number found outside of an Etruscan context.
Paddock divides the Etrusco-Thracian helmet into subtypes I-V (Paddock 1993, 334-336). Generally speaking the Etrusco-Thracian type is defined by a high, conically shaped bowl fitted with a
brow-band which shapes into a neck-guard at the rear and bends outwards at the front of the helmet to form a distinct brim. The Etrusco-Thracian type generally has cut-outs for the ears with separate hinged ear-guards and is most commonly absent cheek-guards.
The Italo-Pilos type
The Italo-Pilos type (figure 8) is the Italian adaptation of the Greek Pilos helmet, which was developed in Greece in de mid-fifth century BC and most likely derived from the Greek conical felt hat in use since the sixth century. In the fourth century BC the Italian form of the helmet appears on the Italian peninsula, which differs from the Greek original in that its bowl is more bulbous and its height is greater than its diameter. The Greek Pilos in contrast generally has a height similar to its diameter. The Italo-Pilos has a cone shaped bowl, with a slightly outwards bend brow-band separated from the bowl by a step or embossed band.
The Boeotian-type
Just like the Pilos-type was essentially a bronze version of a preexisting felt hat, the Boeotian-type (figure 9) was the bronze version of the Boeotian felt sunhat (Snodgrass 1967, 94). Similar to the Pilos helmets in shape, the Boeotian-type differs due to its enlarged brim, usually separated from the bowl by a step. The large brim of the Boeotian-type often mimics the fluid shape of the original felt
sunhat’s brim.
Commonly portrayed in iconographic sources as a cavalry helmet, the Boeotian helmet was
developed in the 5th century BC and remained in use throughout the Hellenistic period. The helmet is depicted worn by a Roman cavalryman on the altar of Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus dated to the end of the second century BC.
Figure 9. Boeotian type, altar of Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus. The roman cavalryman on the right wears a boeotian type helmet. (Taylor 2017,279)
The Phrygian-type
Like the Pilos and Boeotian helmet forms, the Phrygian-type (figure 10) is based on the shape of a preexisting felt or leather cap known as the Phrygian cap (Connolly 1981, 70).
The Phrygian-type of helmet shares elements with either the Attic-type or the Thracian-type depending on the individual helmet, but in either case the bowl is modified so that the top of the helmet is elongated to form a large forward bending peak. Additionally the type commonly has long and decorated cheek-guards, with the cheek-guards of particularly elaborate examples forming the shape of a bearded face.
The Phrygian-type is commonly also referred to as the Thracian-type, with Paddock describing them as “Thracian helmets with a Phrygian bonnet”. Another common version of the Phrygian-type however is clearly based on the Attic helmet type, and is occasionally described as Phrygian-Attic or Pseudo-Attic. Due to the distinct shape of the peak, I have elected to classify helmets with the Phrygian peak as the traditional Phrygian-type rather than incorporating them within the Etrusco-Thracian and Italo-Attic types.
Figure 10. Phrygian type, 325-300BC from Tarquinia ‘Amazons Sarcophagus’. P4. (D’Amato & Salimbeti 2018, 46)
Insular-/Illyrian-type
The Insular-type (also known as Cretan-type) and Illyrian-type (also known as Greco-Illyrian type) are stylistic relatives based on the same predecessor, the Kegelhelm. Both types developed during the seventh century BC and are depicted well into the fifth century (Connolly 1981, 60). Connolly includes both helmet types in the Kegel-Illyrian group.
Both the Insular- and Illyrian type (figure 11) are open faced helmets with a bowl slightly more elongated than a demi sphere. No nose-guards are present, but both types have large cheek-guards formed as part of the bowl. In the Illyrian-type the open-faced section of the helmet is rectangular with an embossed ridge along its lower edge. A low crest-ridge runs along the medial axis of the bowl. The insular-type in contrast has an oval-shaped open faced section, with a tall crest holder fixed on the helmet crown. Later versions of the Illyrian-type can incorporate a neck-guard and cutouts for the ears. The Insular and early Illyrian forms are created from two halves which are riveted together along the medial axis. Later Illyrian-type helmets are created from a single piece (Connolly 1981, 60).
The Montefortino type
The most well-known helmet type from Italy, the Montefortino-type (figure 12) is closely associated with Roman soldiers of the middle and late Republic period even in ancient times. At the end of the First Punic War, the city of Entella (Sicily) honoured a hosted Roman official by emblazoning a Montefortino helmet (Taylor 2017, 280).
The origins of the Montefortino-type lie however with the Celts, with the first examples in the archaeological record dating from the end of the fifth century BC in Celtic North Italy (Paddock 1993, 470). During the early fourth century, the helmet was adapted by the Etruscans who cast them using the lost-wax method. The Etruscan city of Arretium in particular is noted by Livy to be a major manufacturer of the type in the third century BC (Cowan 2018, 752). The Montefortino form is made exclusively in bronze by the Etruscans, with iron versions known only from Celtic contexts (Paddock 1993, 470).
The Montefortino-type can be characterized by a high conical bowl topped with a knob. Its lower edge is bend outwards to form a small rim, which is enlarged and bend downwards at the rear of the helmet to create a small neck-guard. Cheek-guards when present are hinged and usually of a bicuspid shape.
Figure 12. Montefortino type, depicted on an Etruscan stele dated 300-100BC, from Castiglioncello. S19. (Taylor 2017, 287)
4.2 The cuirasses.
For the cuirasses, six main types have been identified within the dataset. Arguably, one of these types (composite armour) consists of a number of distinct variants, namely the linothorax (linen cuirass), lamellar armour and scale armour (D’Amato & Salimbeti 2018, 55-56).
Unlike the bronze helmets which are commonly represented in Etruscan tombs, actual chest armour is extremely rare in an Etruscan context. To my knowledge only six examples can be attributed to a known provenance, the majority of which belong to the so-called muscle cuirass variety. Most of our knowledge on Etruscan cuirasses therefore stems from secondary sources such as frescoes or votive statues. Within our dataset, six main types of cuirass can be identified. These are the bell cuirass, the muscle cuirass, the single-disc cuirass, the triple-disc cuirass, the composite cuirass and the mail cuirass.
Bell cuirass
The bell cuirass (figure 13), also referred to as the Argos-type or gualothorax, is a type of bronze cuirass consisting of a solid breast- and back plate covering the body from just below the neck to the waist. Around the neck, armholes and in the hips the bronze is rolled outwards creating a thicker edge to both strengthen the edge and help deflect weapon blows (D’Amato & Salimbeti 2018, 52). Early versions are fastened together with straps on both sides while later versions are equipped with hinges on one side and straps on the other. The bell cuirass typically has simple decorations that imitate some of the muscular anatomy of the male torso (Connolly 1981, 54). The earliest bell cuirass dates from the eight century BC and was found near Argos (Greece). The type remained in use for at least two centuries (Connolly 1981, 54).
In our database one examples of the bell cuirass is included. The “Mars of Ravenna” dated to
540-520BC and found at Array near Ravenna, shows a warrior wearing an undecorated version of the bell-cuirass (Galestin 1987, 36 & 137).
Figure 13. Bell cuirass & Illyrian/Insular helmet, 540-520BC, from Ravenna.M12. (RMO Leiden; author’s photo)
Muscle cuirass
The muscle cuirass (figure 14), also commonly referred to as the anatomical cuirass or more rarely as
thorax statos, is a refinement of the earlier bell cuirass. The muscle cuirass appeared in Italy in the
early fifth century BC and remained in use until the end of the Roman Imperial period. The muscle cuirass forms the shape of the nude male torso, with a pronounced embossed muscular structure. The breast- and back plate are commonly attached through six hinges, two on each side and two on the shoulders. These hinges were secured together with pins. The muscle cuirass lacks the lower rolled up rim of the bell cuirass but the full-length version extends further down the waist providing protection to the lower abdomen and lower spine. While commonly assumed to be bronze, it is likely a leather version was also in use. Two main forms of the muscle cuirass were in use, the full-length muscle cuirass which covers the upper torso and abdomen, as well as a shorter version covering only the torso above the waist (Connolly 1981, 54; D’Amato & Salimbeti 2018, 53).
Muscle cuirasses from Italy differ from those from Greece in that the decorations imitating the muscular structure of the torso are much more stylized and exaggerated (D’Amato & Salimbeti 2018, 53).
Single-disc cuirass
The single-disc cuirass (figure 15), also referred to as circular breastplates or round-pectoral armour, is a relatively simple type of cuirass intended to protect the region of the heart. This type of armour is known from seventh and sixth century BC contexts, with Tagliamonte mentioning over 60 single-disc cuirasses dating from the 7th to the late 6th centuries BC from the region of Abruzzo (Tagliamonte 1996). The single-disc cuirass is still depicted on South Italic vase painting from the fourth century BC, indicating a long use-span. The Etruscan examples typically consists of a pectoral disc and a back disc of roughly 20 to 24 centimeters in diameter, attached by either a complex harness of leather straps or a large shoulder band.
Our dataset only contains two depictions of this type of cuirass from an Etruscan context; both frescoes from Cerveteri (figure 15) dated to the end of the sixth to the beginning of the fifth century BC. (Burns 2006, 59; Connolly 1981, 97-98).
Figure 15. Single-disc cuirass depicted on a fresco from Cerveteri. 500-400BC. P11. (Connolly 1981, 98)
