perjantai 11. lokakuuta 2024

Three famous Greek helmets that are not what they are said to be

Left to right: The Nugent ”Marathon helmet”, ”Thermopylai helmet” and ”Plataiai helmet”, in the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada.


There are three ancient Greek helmets in the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) in Canada, which are quite famous as they are said to be found from ancient battlefields. Battlefield finds of Greek helmets are so rare that they are almost non-existent excluding these three helmets. What is even more remarkable, is that these are said to come from the three most famous battlefields of the Graeco-Persian Wars: Marathon (490 BCE), Thermopylai (480 BCE), and Plataiai (479 BCE). And they were all found by the same man. If this sounds a bit too good to be true, then it most probably isn't.

The man in question was George Nugent-Grenville, 2nd Baron Nugent of Carlanstown (1788–1850), an Irish politician and antiquarian who served as Lord High Commissioner of the Ionian Islands in Greece in 1832–1835. At the time, seven main islands (Kerkyra, Paxi, Lefkada, Kefallonia, Ithaki, Zakynthos, Kythira) with some smaller islets in the Ionian Sea formed a republic called United States of the Ionian Islands. It was a Greek state and amical protectorate of the United Kingdom between 1815 and 1864. The British had taken the islands from the French Empire in 1809–1810, which in turn had taken them from the Republic of Venice in 1797, which had ruled the islands since the Middle Ages. The State was ceded by the British to Greece as a gift to the newly enthroned king George I of Greece (great-grandfather of current king Charles III of the United Kingdom) in 1864.

Baron Nugent served as the ninth ruler (and fourth Lord High Commissioner) of the Ionian Islands just after the Greek War of Independence (1821–1832). During this war the British navy had been very influential, so Lord High Commissioner probably would have had no trouble carrying out archaeological digs around Greece. However, he need not have done the excavations himself, and it is equally possible that the helmets were gifted to him while he was in office. Baron Nugent was a true philhellene, who was deeply respected by his protégés in the islands. Two previous Lord High Commissioners had been authoritarians, so the islanders put a lot of hope to their new liberal protector, and he did not let them down. He listened his subjects, instituted humane policies and favoured learning and science by founding a university library, botanical gardens, and an archaeological museum in the Ionian islands.

It is possible that these helmets were excavated or purchased by Baron Nugent, or gifted to him, but their original finding places are not so clear. It is implausible that the three helmets would come from Marathon, Thermopylai and Plataiai. The odds are severely against that kind of luck, since no other helmets have been found in any of these battle sites before or since. Lord High Commissioner's office was in Kerkyra (Corfu), far removed from the previously mentioned battlefields. Maybe at least some of the helmets came from nearer Kerkyra, perhaps very near indeed. While military works were being commissioned on the islet of Vidos, at the coast of Kerkyra, archaeological findings were discovered there. That led the Commissioner to propose to the Senate the establishment of an archaeological museum. This museum was perhaps the one in the palace of Mon Repos, which was built a few years before Baron Nugent's stay there, and currently still has a public archaeological collection. That any of the helmets would have been found at the Vidos dig is however speculation, that I cannot prove, and it is equally possible that the helmets came from elsewhere in Greece. Or even outside of Greece.

The only source telling that the helmets were found in Marathon, Thermopylai and Plataiai is not from the pen of Baron Nugent himself, but from a letter written nearly a hundred years later by the man who sold them in Sotheby's auction house. This makes me seriously question the authenticity of the provenience of these objects. Baron Nugent died without issue in 1850, and the helmets eventually ended up with certain T. Sutton, who sold them via Sotheby's (auction of 22nd July 1926, lot 160), where Royal Ontario Museum bought them. According to letters from Sutton dated 2 and 20 of August 1926 Baron Nugent had excavated these helmets in the battle sites in the 1830s, and that the helmets were in excavated condition, with the ”Marathon helmet” still having a human skull inside. And indeed the helmet came with a skull to the Royal Ontario Museum, and has since been exhibited with it.

The Nugent ”Marathon helmet” exhibited with a human skull (ROM No. 926.19.5) in the Royal Ontario Museum.


The Sutton letters state that the finds ”came by descent in the family into the possession of the Boileau family, and remained with them until they were sold to me by Lt. Col. R. F. Boileau of Ketteringham Park, Norfolk”. The Boileaus are a family of baronets in Norfolk, the baronetcy was created in 1838 by John Boileau (1794–1869), who was also an antiquary and archaeologist. Since he was a contemporary to Baron Nugent, and outlived him by nineteen years, and they both shared love for archaeology, it is entirely possible that the helmets were inherited by him. Lieutenant-Colonel Francis William Boileau (1835–1915) would have been the one selling the helmets to T. Sutton. This must have happened of course before Boileau's death in 1915, so Sutton had the helmets for more than a decade, and then decided to sell them. Now I must remind you that all this information is solely based on letters by T. Sutton writing nearly a century years later than Baron Nugent reportedly got the helmets. If we are to believe Sutton, the helmets were in the property of Baron Nugent, then in the Boileau family, and then in Sutton's hands, before they were purchased by the ROM. It is a plausible chain of ownership, yet something that I can't prove.

Whatever the case, I don't believe that the helmets were found in the aforementioned battlefield sites. Lying about the provenience of objects to make them more valuable in auctions is sadly not unheard of, and it is possible that Sutton invented the find places to get more money from the helmets. Sutton got 80 pounds of the ”Thermopylai helmetv, a hefty sum nearly a hundred years ago. In today's money it would be over 6000 pounds, although now such a helmet would be several times more valuable, because of higher demand. It is also possible that Sutton was innocent of the fabricated provenience, and it was devised by some of the previous owners of the helmets. Robert Mason of ROM in his 2014 article about the ”Marathon helmet” says that ”Nugent may have been a romantic, but nothing in his biography would necessarily indicate a tale-spinner”. This inclines me to think that Baron Nugent did not fabricate the provenience of the helmets himself, but perhaps they were presented to him as being found from these sites, to make a gift more prestigious, or a sale worth more money.

What we know is that Baron Nugent might have acquired the helmets during his stay in the Ionian Islands in 1832–1835. We cannot know for certain if he really had them, and if so, did he got them by his own excavations, or by purchasing them from somebody else, or even as gifts. Nothing about the helmets' find places is recorded until 1926, when Sutton sold them in Sotheby's. There is a skull that was sold inside the ”Marathon helmet” to ROM, but it is unlikely that it belongs to the same find. That would be another very rare occurrence. Mason wrote in his article that ”we cannot be certain that the skull belonged to the owner of the helmet, but really we cannot discount it either. A DNA study and radiocarbon study could tell us that it was a Greek of the time, but that is not presently planned”. It has been ten years since Mason wrote this, and no study of the skull has been made. Museums are not too enthusiastic on spending money on studies that could prove their objects as fake, even though that would be the right thing to do in case of doubt.

Even if we were to believe Sutton that Nugent really found the helmets in Marathon, Thermopylai and Plataiai, the objects themselves do not date to the time of those battles. I will talk about each helmet separately.

The Nugent ”Marathon helmet”


The Nugent ”Marathon helmet”, ROM No. 926.19.3.

Stylistically this helmet belongs to a group created around 550 BCE, roughly two generations before the battle of Marathon (490 BCE). Helmets of this group have a slightly bulbuous shape without a carination separating the skull from the lower helmet. They feature tall leaf-shaped eyeholes, a thick round-tipped nasal, cheek pieces that terminate to an acute downwards-pointing tips, and a neckguard which protrudes far back of the recessed occiput. Often these helmets have tiny holes going around the perimeter of the helmet, not meant for sewing a helmet liner, but for attaching decorative silver pins that are present in some originals.

Evolution of Corinthian type helmets. I added the Nugent ”Marathon helmet” under the one in 550 BCE to show the similarities.


These details are characteristic of Corinthian helmets of mid 6th century BCE, and they do not feature in helmets of the Persian Wars period anymore. The most telling detail is the lack of carination. Carination appears in Corinthian helmets in circa 530 BCE and was used after that until the end of these helmets. It became a characteristic feature of the latest Corinthian helmets, especially the Hermione type. The ”Marathon helmet” has only a slight hint of what would evolve into a true carination some decades later. Being roughly sixty years too old, this helmet cannot be from the battle of Marathon. We have very sparse evidence of outdated helmets being used in battles, and nothing suggesting this large a time gap. On the contrary we have a verified helmet from the time of the battle of Marathon, the one that the Athenian general Miltiades dedicated to Zeus in Olympia. That helmet is of the Hermione type, the latest fashion.

Helmet of Miltiades, identified by inscription (ΜΙΛΤΙΑΔΕΣ ΑΝΕ[Θ]ΕΚΕΝ [Τ] ΟΙΔΙ, Miltiades dedicated [me] to Zeus), for sure dates to the period of the Persian Wars.
Archaeological Museum of Olympia, Greece. The museum dates it to 500–490 BCE.


Randall Hixenbaugh in his book Ancient Greek helmets, a complete guide and catalog (2019) dates the Nugent Corinthian helmet (Catalogue number C656, page 424) to 525–475 BCE (perhaps due to its association with the battle of Marathon), but I disagree because of stylistic reasons. This is not the only time I disagree with him, such a large book is sure to contain some errors in it, and the datings in it are many times pretty vague. Hixenbaugh is unsure about the provenience of the helmet: ”Purportedly found in 1834 at Marathon, Greece with an accompanying skull inside.”

The Royal Ontario Museum dates this helmet to 500–490 BCE, solely because of the association with the battle of Marathon, but they also admit that it was ”allegedly found” there. Sadly the description of the helmet is taken straight out of the 2014 article written by Mason, and it includes this statement: ”they [these three helmets] are indeed of the types that would be used on these dates”. I dare to say this is not correct. Robert Mason who is responsible for cataloguing Egyptian, Greek, Roman, West Asian and East Asian art in ROM graduated as a doctor in archaeological science in Oxford in 1994, but his expertise lies in Medieval Europe and the Islamic world. Thus the lack of technical expertise on the minutiae of ancient Greek helmets is a pity but understandable.


The Nugent ”Thermopylai helmet”


The Nugent ”Thermopylai helmet”, ROM No. 926.19.4.

This helmet is of the Chalcidian type (not made in Chalkis, but that's another story), which is mainly found in Italy. Examples in Greece are known, though rarer, and mostly as dedications in Olympia, which could have been made anywhere. The museum states that the helmet is ”said to be from Thermopylae, Greece; alternatively from Southern Italy”. The shape of its frontal carination, which curves down to a point instead of going up is a feature seen in many southern Italian helmets, both in Corinthian and Chalcidian forms. It is not completely unknown in Greece either, couple of examples are known in Chalcidian helmets, although fewer than those with upwards turning frontal carination.

Chalcidian helmets with downwards curving frontal carination. L to R: a helmet in the Archaeological Museum of Gela, Sicily, the Nugent ”Thermopylai helmet”, and a helmet in the Archaeological Museum of Piraeus, Athens.


Hixenbaugh lists this helmet (X42, page 452) as: ”purportedly found at the battlefield of Thermopylae, Greece in the 1830s”, and he gives it a dating of 500–400 BCE. Royal Ontario Museum dates it to 520–480 BCE. This helmet could perhaps be from the time of the battle of Thermopylai (480 BCE), or it could be newer by half a century. It is very hard to date because so few extant helmets of this type come from proper archaeological excavations, which could determine their age and find place, instead most are from illegal digs and ended up in auctions.

It is technically possible that this helmet is from Greece from the time of the battle of Thermopylai, but that itself doesn't convince me that it would have been found on that famous battlefield. Equally (or perhaps more) possible is that the helmet comes from Southern Italy, where this style was most popular. The dating of this helmet style is so vague that it is not possible to say for certain if the object in question really was contemporaneous to the battle or not.


The Nugent ”Plataiai helmet”


The Nugent ”Plataiai helmet”, ROM No. 909.14.7.


The third helmet is of Illyrian type (again a misnomer, since it was not made in Illyria). The Royal Ontario Museum dates it very vaguely to 600–480 BCE, the date range extended to cover the Persian Wars, no doubt an attempt to give leeway to the idea of this helmet being from the battle of Plataiai. The museum is unsure about its origin: ”Greece, said to have been found at Plataia”. Even if the helmet had actually been found at Plataiai it dates much earlier than the famous battle. Stylistically this helmet is even older than the Nugent Corinthian helmet. It belongs to type II in Hermann Pflug's typology (Antike Helme, 1988, p. 43). This style is recognized by a curved neck-guard which connects to the cheekpieces almost at a right angle, and by the embossed horizontal line(s) above the face cut-out. Many examples have rivets decorating the border. The style is dated from late 7th century to mid 6th century BCE. Hixenbaugh gives years 600–550 BCE. He lists this particular helmet with number I88 (page 291), and says about its origin: ”Find spot unknown, purportedly found at the battlefield of Plataea, Greece”. Illyrian helmets were used for a long time, but the types contemporary to the Persian Wars (III A and III B) were different in shape and details. This helmet could be a century older than the battle.

Evolution of Illyrian type helmets. From left to right: type I, type II, type III A (top) and III B (bottom). It is clear that the Nugent ”Plataiai helmet” belongs to type II.


Conclusion

All this being said these helmets are wonderful specimens by themselves, examples of beautiful craftsmanship, and interesting pieces of ancient and modern history, regardless of where they originally came from. However, it is important that we acknowledge that they most likely are not from the battles of Marathon, Thermopylai and Plataiai. Battlefield finds of ancient Greek helmets are extremely rare, so these helmets would represent three unbelievably lucky cases in a row. The attribution of the helmets to these battles comes from a much later source than their purported finding time, and conveniently happens to turn up right when the helmets were sold in an auction. No studies have ever been made to try to date these helmets with scientific methods, nor to link the Corinthian helmet to the skull that came with it. Comparative analysis makes it clear that the Corinthian and Illyrian helmets in question are older than the battles they are associated with, and while the Chalcidian helmet could be from the same time period, the dating of that style of helmet is vague, on top of which it is not sure if it even comes from Greece, Southern Italy being a likelier alternative.



Sources:

Bottini, Angelo, Egg, Markus, Von Hase, Friedrich-Wilhelm, Pflug, Hermann, Schaaff, Ulrich, Schauer, Peter, Waurick, Götz (1988) Antike Helme, Handbuch mit Katalog. Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz.

Hixenbaugh, Randall A. (2019) Ancient Greek helmets, a complete guide and catalog. Hixenbaugh Ancient Art Ltd, New York.

Kourkoumelis, N. (2024) A Philhellene Lord High Commissioner of the Ionian State, diligently ignored: George Nugent-Grenville, 2nd Baron Nugent of Carlanstown, GCMG. Accessed 11.10.2024: kourkoumelis-english.pdf (albertcohen.gr)

Mason, Robert (2014) Weapon wednesday: The Nugent Marathon Corinthian helmet. Royal Ontario Museum. Accessed 11.10.2024: Weapon Wednesday: The Nugent Marathon Corinthian Helmet | Royal Ontario Museum (rom.on.ca)

keskiviikko 14. helmikuuta 2024

Flute-playing crab, a real shield emblem, or an Athenian joke?

There is a very peculiar shield emblem in Attic red-figure vase painting at the end of the 6th century BCE, that of a flute-playing crab. I know only two examples of this emblem in art, the first from the famous Euphronios krater, the second from another krater by a painter called Karkinos. The crabs are playing the double-flutes aulos, and they look like this.

On the left a figure from the Euphronios krater, on the right a figure from the Karkinos krater. Both have the same shield emblem, which might be unique to these two vases.

 

The vases and their painters

On the left the Euphronios krater, also known as the Sarpedon krater, since Euphronios painted the death of Sarpedon on its A side, this B side shows youths arming themselves. On the right the Karkinos krater, side A showing the abduction of Antiope by Theseus, side B shows riding Amazons. Not to scale.

The Euphronios krater is famous, even infamous vase, because it turned out to have been illegally excavated in an Etruscan cemetery in Greppe Sant’Angelo area, near Cerveteri, by a gang of tomb robbers in December 1971. Previously it was possible to see these two vases together in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, where the Euphronios krater used to be part of the museum's collection from 1972 to 2008. After it was deemed illegally excavated in 2006, it was transferred to Italy, where it recided in the National Etruscan Museum in Villa Giulia in Rome until 2015, after which it has been exhibited in the Cerite National Archaeological Museum in Cerveteri, Italy. It is the most important surviving work of the Athenian vase painter Euphronios (c. 535 – after 470 BCE), and it is dated to 515 BCE.

Not much is known about the life of Euphronios, but he must have been born during the tyranny of Peisistratos, when Athenian art and culture bloomed. At that time black-figure painting was the prevalent style in Attic vase-painting, but around 530 BCE the workshop of the painter Andokides started to produce vases in the new red-figure style. Potters such as Andokides and Nikosthenes contributed greatly to ancient Greek vase art, by inventing new vase shapes and styles of painting. Euphronios also became one of the Pioneer Group of the emerging red-figure painting.

Much of the Athenian pottery of that time was made for export, and most of the extant Attic pottery has been found as grave goods from Etruscan tombs. Most of Euphronios's work has been found in Cerveteri, ancient Caere, an Etruscan city which has been called a privileged market for red-figure production, and Euphronios in particular” by Italian archaeologist Maria Antonietta Rizzo.

The other vase, which I dubbed the Karkinos vase, can be seen in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and has been in their collection since 1959. It is dated to circa 500 BCE. Almost nothing is known about the Karkinos Painter, his name is modern, coined after the crab, karkinos, he has painted on this vase. He was active in Athens about 500–480 BCE, at the end of the Archaic Period. He and Euphronios were contemporaries and likely knew each other, since all Athenian potters and vase painters worked at the same district of Kerameikos (the distict is named after κέραμος, kéramos, pottery clay), or at least the Karkinos Painter was familiar with Euphronios's work. Since the Euphronios krater is earlier, it is probable that the Karkinos Painter copied the flute-playing crab image from the imaginative Euphronios, who was famous in his own time, signing his own works (not all vase artists did this).

Where did Euphronios invent this image of a flutist crab from? The Metropolitan Museum offers their explanation, which I find very convincing. They say about the Karkinos vase: Of special interest on the obverse is the shield device of a flute-playing crab. The motif plays on the name of a famous flute-player in late-sixth century B.C. Athens, Karkinos, crab. The device occurs again on the reverse of the calyx-krater by Euphronios and Euxitheos.

 

Who was Karkinos the Flautist, and all the other Karkinoi?

I have not been able to find much information about this flute-player except his name and the century in which he flourished. However, from the 4th century BCE a theatre-dynasty of Karkinos the Elder, his son Xenokles, and his son Karkinos the Younger are known. They came from Thorikos, the southernmost deme of Attika and were all tragic playwrights in Athens. The elder Karkinos and his sons are mentioned, or appear on stage, as tragic performers in three plays by Aristophanes (in Wasps, Clouds and Peace). The younger Karkinos was active in the 370s BCE, his father Xenokles was active from circa 420 BCE onwards. Before that time the title of the family poet was reserved for the elder Karkinos, the father of Xenokles. Who knows, perhaps this family of musicians, playwrites and actors was related to the flute-player Karkinos, maybe even directly descended from him? It seems that the theatre was very often family-business in ancient Greece.

If this was indeed true (which I unfortunately cannot prove) it would mean that the eldest Karkinos (the flautist) living in the late sixth century BCE could perhaps be the grandfather of Karkinos the Elder, since there are some 70 years between them, about two generations. Since antiquity, there has been a strong tradition of naming the first and second sons after the paternal and maternal grandfathers in Greece, a practice that still continues to this day. This would indicate that Karkinos the flautist could be the grandfather of Karkinos the Elder. The following is a hypothetical family tree with a tentative chronology I created for understanding the time and relations of these people. The dates are the adulthood years of the men, when their careers fourished.

Karkinos the Flautist, 515–500 BCE
|
Unknown man, 500–460 BCE?
|
Karkinos the Elder, 460?–420 BCE
|
Xenokles and his two or three brothers, 420–370? BCE
|
Karkinos the Younger, son of Xenokles, 380–350 BCE

 

The career of Xenokles seems to have been very long, about fifty years, but this is not unheard of in Antiquity nor in the modern World, and it is based on sources. That would allow a forty year career for his father, if the flourishing years of Karkinos the Flautist ended in 500, although he could have been in the game longer. In any case I think that the dates match reasonably well, so that Karkinos the Flautist could time-wise be the grandfather of Karkinos the Elder. Still it has to be remembered that this possible relation is in no way provable because of the lack of direct evidence.

It seems that Karkinos the Elder and his three (or four) sons were well-known in Athens at their time. Karkinos and Xenokles at least were tragic playwrights, Xenokles's brothers were either playwrights or actors. Karkinos the Elder and three sons of his appear at the end of Aristophanes's comedy Wasps. Aristophanes probably knew Xenokles well, since he parodied his work quite often (e.g. in Clouds, Thesmophoriazusae and Frogs). Aristophanes's Wasps ends in a funny dancing competition in which the three sons of Karkinos take part. It is also a perfect example of ancient Greek humour, which showcases their love for word-play and puns:

Philokleon
And now I summon and challenge my rivals. If there be a tragic poet who pretends to be a skilful dancer, let him come and contest the matter with me. Is there one? Is there not one?

Xanthias
Here comes one, and one only.

A very small dancer, costumed as a crab, enters.

Philokleon
Who is the wretch?

Xanthias
The younger son of Karkinos.

Philokleon
I will crush him to nothing; in point of keeping time, I will knock him out, for he knows nothing of rhythm.

Xanthias
Ah! ah! here comes his brother too, another tragedian, and another son of Karkinos.

Another dancer, hardly larger than the first, and similarly costumed, enters.

Philokleon
Him I will devour for my dinner.

Xanthias
Oh! ye gods! I see nothing but crabs. Here is yet another son of Karkinos.

A third dancer enters, likewise resembling a crab, but smaller than either of the others.

Philokleon
What's this? A shrimp or a spider?

Xanthias
It's a crab, —a hermit-crab, the smallest of its kind; it writes tragedies.

Philokleon
Oh! Karkinos, how proud you should be of your brood! What a crowd of kinglets have come swooping down here! But we shall have to measure ourselves against them. Have marinade prepared for seasoning them, in case I prove the victor.

Leader of the Chorus
Let us stand out of the way a little, so that they may twirl at their ease.

Chorus
It divides in two and accompanies with its song the wild dancing of Philokleon and the sons of Karkinos in the centre of the Orchestra.
Come, illustrious children of this inhabitant of the brine, brothers of the shrimps, skip on the sand and the shore of the barren sea; show us the lightning whirls and twirls of your nimble limbs. Glorious offspring of Phrynic let fly your kicks, so that the spectators may be overjoyed at seeing your legs so high in air. Twist, twirl, tap your bell kick your legs to the sky. Here comes your famous father, the ruler of the sea, delighted to see his three lecherous kings. Go on with your dancing, if it pleases you, but as for us, we shall not join you. Lead us promptly off the stage, for never a comedy yet was seen where the Chorus finished off with a dance.

–Aristophanes, Wasps, lines 1497–1529ff.

It seems that the Greeks just couldn't help making jest of the name Karkinos, calling him ruler of the sea, his sons brothers of the shrimps, making jokes about marinating and eating them, even dressing the sons in crab costumes for the theatre. In this light it is only natural that flute-playing crabs were painted by vase-artists, as a kind of inside joke known to them and other Athenians, however completely unintelligible to their Etruscan customers. The Italians might have been perplexed about the meaning of these crabs, maybe they thought them cute, like we do.

But things get even more interesting. A piece of ancient Greek musical notation of an unknown provenance (Louvre Pap. E 10534) was bought from a dealer in Cairo and brought to Louvre in 1891. The fragment dates to 2nd century CE and it is identified as a piece from a tragedy Medeia by Karkinos the Younger, one of the leading playwrights between 380–350 BCE in Athens. That means an actual piece of music composed by the youngest Karkinos in this family tree exists. What is even more exciting is that I found that piece of music actually played with a tzouras (a kind of bouzouki). And it was done by my own countryman Kimmo Kovanen from Finland. He is working on his PhD thesis on ancient Greek music in my University. How exciting!

You of course want to hear how that piece of music sounds, and you can listen it right here:


Click here if the player above doesn't work.

How wonderful to hear a piece of ancient music. Even though it is played on a stringed instrument instead of a flute, and it's four generations younger than Karkinos the Flautist, we can imagine hearing a little bit of what he could have played with his aulos at the theatre of Dionysos in Athens, or wherever he might have performed. He must have played so well that the famous vase painter Euphronios and one of his admirers made him into a word-play, a joke which travelled over a thousand kilometers from Athens to Caere to the Etruscan customers who never knew who Karkinos was or why the crabs were playing the double-flute on the shields, and finally 25 centuries in time for us to wonder the same questions.

 

A note to reenactors

If you want to reenact a Greek hoplite and want a crab for your shield, maybe do not make the crab play the double-flutes (ordinary crabs are more plentiful as shield emblems in vase art). This seems to have been an inside joke that the vase-painters invented, and it's not sure if it ever existed on real shields. However, if you insist on painting a flautist crab on your shield, make sure that it fits your reenactment persona, since this joke requires you to play the part of a late 6th century BCE Athenian soldier, like those youths on the Euphronios krater. And familiarise yourself with this story, so you can explain to all who ask why the crab on your shield is playing the double-flutes. With that emblem you are making jest of a well-known Athenian flute-player named after the pincered sea-creature.



Post scriptum about other musical arthropods

There is a nice parallel to the flautist crabs in a phiale attributed to the previously mentioned potter Nikosthenes, which shows an aulos-playing scorpion. It looks like this.

This libation bowl was made in Athens, probably in Nikosthenes's workshop, was then transported to Capua in Campania, where it was found, and can now be seen in the British Museum. The museum dates it to 500–470 BCE, which is surely not correct, since Nikosthenes died around 510 BCE. He worked approximately between 550 and 510 BCE. Nikosthenes specialized in producing vases for the Etruscan market too. He worked with a lot of painters, in the transitional period from black-figure to red-figure style.

The bowl shows a hare-hunting scene and an array of other animals, such as foxes, birds, and snakes. Among those is a scorpion playing the double-flutes just like the crabs. The scorpion looks exceptionally funny to me, since its pedipalps holding the aulos are shaped like human arms. Perhaps this motif was inspired by the (contemporary?) flute-playing crabs of Euphronios and company, since they must have known each others work pretty well (Euphronios was once pupil of the painter Oltos, who worked with Nikosthenes). Or perhaps the scorpion was earlier than the crabs? In any case I have hard time believing that the same idea of an aulos-playing arthropod was just a coincidence.


Thanks to Paul Bardunias for bringing the scorpion phiale into my attention.


Sources:

Aristophanes, (1938). Wasps. The Complete Greek Drama, vol. 2. Eugene O'Neill, Jr. New York. Random House. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0044%3Acard%3D1474

Kovanen, Kimmo (upcoming). Finding Inner Harmonia. A Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Ancient Greek Musical Modes. PhD in Classics, University of Helsinki.
https://soundcloud.com/kimmopkovanen

Lloyd, James (2019). Music in Ancient Sparta: instruments,
song, archaeology, and image
. PhD in Classics, University of Reading.
https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/88938/1/23862434_Lloyd_thesis.pdf 

Povoledo, Elisabetta (2008). Ancient Vase Comes Home to a Hero’s Welcome. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/arts/design/19bowl.html

Stewart, Edmund (2016). An ancient theatre dynasty: the elder Carcinus, the young Xenocles and the sons of Carcinus in Aristophanes. Philologus, 160(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1515/phil-2016-0001

Vaio, John (1971). Aristophanes' Wasps. The Relevance of the Final Scenes. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies. Vol. 12, No. 3. https://www.academia.edu/8588357/Aristophanes_Wasps_The_Relevance_of_the_Final_Scenes

West, M. L. (2007). A New Musical Papyrus: Carcinus, Medea”. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 161, pp. 1-10. Published By: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20191275 

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1873-0820-388

https://civitavecchia.portmobility.it/en/cerite-national-archaeological-museum-cerveteri

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/255014 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinus_(writer)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphronios

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphronios_Krater

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_name

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikosthenes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenocles

maanantai 5. helmikuuta 2024

Miksi Britanniassa ajetaan vasemmalla puolella tietä?

Tunnettu tarina kuuluu jotenkin seuraavasti:

Tien vasemmalla reunalla ajaminen on peräisin keskiajalta, jolloin ritarit ratsastivat tien vasemmalla laidalla, jotta vihollisen kohdatessaan heidän miekkakätensä olisi valmiiksi oikealla puolella. Britanniassa tästä tavasta ei ole koskaan luovuttu, ja sen takia autoillakin ajetaan maassa tien vasemmalla puolella.

Juttu on hupaisa, mutta historioitsijana en kykene millään uskomaan sen taustalla olevaa tarinaa. Tarinan mukaan, joka välillä sijoittuu keskiajalle, välillä antiikin Roomaan, ihmisiä ryösteltiin jatkuvasti (tai heidän kimppuunsa käytiin muuten vain), ja koska suurin osa ihmisistä on oikeakätisiä, on järkevämpää ohittaa mahdollinen pahantekijä vasemmalta, koska silloin miekkakäsi on mahdollisen hyökkääjän puolella. Tähän tarinaan liittyy kuitenkin kasapäin ongelmia.
 
Ensinnäkään en ole onnistunut löytämään sille yhtään historiallista todistetta, että antiikin Roomassa tai keskiajalla olisi todella ajateltu näin. Tai edes sille, että mitään valtakunnanlaajuista standardia tai yleistä tapaa kulkea tien vasemmassa laidassa olisi ollut olemassa. Koko tarina kaatuu siis jo alkutekijöissään todisteiden puutteeseen. Tätä tarinaa joskus verrataan siihen, että keskiaikaisissa linnoissa portaat kiertyivät vain oikealle (alhaalta ylöspäin kuljettaessa), jotta hyökkääjän miekkamiehillä olisi vähemmän tilaa käytellä aseitaan. Kumpikin tarina vaikuttaa yhtä lailla potaskalta. Näitä keksittiin romantiikan ajalla yhtenään. Linnojen kierreportaita on rakennettu kumpaankin suuntaan kääntyneinä, ja ihmiset ovat kulkeneet teillä miten sattuu.
 
Iso osa ihmisistä kulki myöskin jalan, ei hevosella. Keskiaikaisella ritarilla sen sijaan oli yleensä mukanaan muutaman hengen ratsuseurue, ja maantierosvot olisivat varmaankin tyytyneet helpompiin saaliisiin, ritarit olivat kuitenkin ammattisotilaita. Kaiken lisäksi, jos haluaisi uskoa tällaiseen (jos siitä siis olisi ainuttakaan todistetta), pitäisi vielä osoittaa tavan jatkuneen katkeamatta keskiajalta nykyaikaan, mitä ei tietenkään kukaan ole kyennyt tekemään.
 
Eräässä artikkelissa kerrottiin antiikin ajalla tavan siirtyneen siviileiltä Rooman legioonalaisille, jotka aina kävelivät tien vasemmalla puolella edellämainitusta syystä. Sanomattakin on selvää, ettei tästäkään ole minkäänlaista mainintaa historiankirjoissa. Kuitenkin, jos nyt kuvitellaan miten tämä toimisi, herää lisää kysymyksiä. Koska legioonalaisilla oli suuri kilpi mukanaan, heidän oikea kylkensä oli turvattomampi, joten heille olisi tämän logiikan mukaan ollut järkevämpää kulkea tien oikealla laidalla.
 
Jalkamies varsin nopeasti kyllä kääntyy suuntaan jos toiseenkin hyökkäyksen sattuessa, ja kääntyy se hevonenkin tarvittaessa, joten en voi uskoa että kellään olisi tällainen teoria käynyt mielessäkään historiallisina aikoina. Ja tietä pitkinkö ne ryövärit kulkisivat? Jos haluaa yllättää miekoin aseistautuneita sotilaita, se kannattaa tehdä hyökkäämällä metsästä sivulta tai takaa päin, ei edestä. Eivät ihmiset olleet ennen tyhmiä, ryöväritkään.
 
En siis löydä tästä selityksestä oikein mitään uskottavia elementtejä. Se lienee keksitty joskus modernilla aikakaudella, kun on haluttu selittää asia, jonka alkuperäinen syy on jo unohtunut. Tällaisissa tarinoissa ratsastetaan "pimeän keskiajan" tai "ennen kaikki oli huonommin" -tapaisilla myyteillä. Ei maailma kuitenkaan ollut niin vaarallinen paikka kuin nämä tarinat antavat ymmärtää.
 
Todennäköisesti liikenne on kaupunkien kasvaessa jossain vaiheessa määrätty kulkemaan tietyllä puolella tietä, jotta vältyttäisiin kolareilta ja ruuhkilta. Tämä on todennäköisesti keksitty monta kertaa eri paikoissa, kuten vaikkapa antiikin Roomassa ja uudestaan keskiajalla kun kaupungistuminen jälleen vilkastui. Maaseudulla ei varmasti kukaan valvonut tämmöisiä, eikä ainakaan pikkuteillä mitään kaistoja ollut. Systeemeitä on varmasti ollut useita ja samaan aikaan valtakunnan eri kaupungeissa on voitu kulkea eri puolilla tietä. Eiköhän valtakunnanlaajuinen standardointi ole kuitenkin uuden ajan juttu.