The brooch was part of the collection of the House of Braganza (the kings of Portugal). How it got there, I don't believe we know, but based on the piece itself, it was likely manufactured in the third century BCE. 2/12
It has a warrior on it, equipped in La Tene Material culture (read: Gallic) style. The artist has taken care to render the kit very accurately: the odd Gallic scabbard suspension is recreated correctly (despite not being shared by the Romans or Greeks)... 3/12
The shield is of the standard La Tene type (but beautifully decorated): it has an oval body (made of wooden planks), with a wooden reinforcing ridge (called a spina) which has a 'barleycorn' (shape not material) boss at the center, secured by an iron 'butterfly' boss. 4/12
We've actually recovered a couple of these shields with the wooden elements more-or-less intact from the site of La Tene and we often find the remains of the iron bosses at sanctuaries (where the shields would have been deposited, probably as war spoils). 5/12
That iron boss (the strip over the center of the shield) would be held in place with rivets at the end, which hook into an iron handle that runs parallel to the boss behind the shield (and is where you hold it). Roman shields in the Republic have much the same construction. 6/12
Back to the brooch, our warrior's sword has broken off, but the hilt looks to be of a Middle La Tene sword.
The helmet is a Montefortino - a type developed by the Gauls and adopted by the Romans. Interestingly, they make them differently! 7/12
The Roman Montefortino is always bronze/brass, and made as a single piece. The Gallic Montefortino is generally iron and the knob at the top (for afixing decorative feathers or crests) is a separate piece fixed at the top of the helmet. 8/12
The brooch itself is, as I noted, a bit of a mystery. It survived in a collection, so we don't have any kind of find-spot information.
As a result, there's a fair amount of debate as to who might have made it, and who might have had it made. 9/12
The general consensus is that the artisan was probably a Greek, but that the intended owner was probably either Iberian or Gallic. The Greeks don't generally represent Gallic/Iberian war-gear with this level of fidelity - care here was taken to get it exactly right. 10/12
F. Quesada Sanz has argued that the warrior here might be Celt-Iberian; I tend to think Gallic, but it is open to argument. There's certainly Iberian stylistic motifs here, like the dog's heads motifs and the warrior-and-hunting-dog motif. 11/12
All in all, the brooch is an absolutely fascinating example of cultural cross-pollination: an apparently Greek artisan painstakingly recreating the equipment of a Gallic warrior for a wealthy Iberian client (presumably a chieftain of some sort).
Also, it's real pretty! end/12
Addendum: I haven't done any justice here to the art-historical import of the brooch, because that's not my specialty.
If you want to read more (from people who know), see A. Persea, ed., La Fibula Braganza/The Braganza Brooch (2011); see if your library can't find a copy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Alright, going to pick up again live-tweeting my reactions to the next few videos in Steven Pressfield's 'The Warrior Archteype series.' I looked at the first five videos last time here:
The short summary of the first five videos is that they presented a utopian Sparta, almost entirely from Plutarch, read very uncritically & thus fell prey to the Myths of Spartan Equality and Spartan Military Excellence, which I have already exploded here: acoup.blog/2019/08/16/col…
Now I want to change up my tone a little bit because in the first posts I was rather flip and dismissive and I want to offer a bit more intellectual charity here.
Now on to 'Episode Six' which is...oh good heavens...which is "Come and Take Them." Because of course it is.
Thucydides (3.82.7) has a line about civil strife, "revenge was held better than avoiding harm in the first place and oaths of reconciliation, being offered only to meet a current setback, held good only while there was no other weapon to hand."
When Marco Rubio thought he was winning, he was all, "We Love What They Did" about violence and intimidation (miami.cbslocal.com/2020/11/03/flo…), now that he's losing and has "no other weapon to hand" he's all about forgiveness and 'unity.'
You know who didn't do that?➡️Joe freakin' Biden⬅️. @JoeBiden was for the same program of justice, accountability and unity today as he was during the general election.
He was for the law when the rioters were supposedly on 'his side' and when they were on 'the other side.'
My pedagogy on this point isn't by any means perfect, but my method has been to focus on the experience of slavery for the enslaved people - use the sources to talk about varying conditions, norms, etc.
I treat 'slavery is bad' as a self-evident premise.
Of course we also talk about ancient attitudes towards slavery, how it was generally treated as normal and even how it was justified - but from the premise that we, possessed of greater understanding, know that slavery is, in fact, bad.
Which, to be honest, if you take an enslaved-person-centric approach to ancient slavery and just give the students sources (e.g. amazon.com/Greek-Slavery-…), the premise really is self-evident, given how awful a lot of the treatment is.
So I'm seeing the same set of reactions to the line "this isn't what America is" which is to respond with the obvious truth that...well, yes it is.
The United States has been lots of things, good and bad and this sad moment is one of them.
But I think that misses the point. 1/
I was struck, in reading Andrew Wolpert's Remembering Defeat (2001), in how central the act of communal redefinition was to restoring the Athenian democracy in the aftermath of the Thirty Tyrants. 2/
In speech after speech, inscription after inscription, that same formula - 'that is/isn't what we are' - recurs. The 'real Athens,' speakers insisted, was the one that had lived in exile, the one that had remained committed to the democracy. Not the Thirty. 3/
Since y'all wanted me to write about the silly idea of the 'universal warrior' and warrior vs. soldier dichotomy, and it came up in the context of Steven Pressfield's silly video...I am now watching his video series.
Y'all do not know the pains I go through to educate the public
Seriously, he opens by treating Plutarch's Sayings of Spartan Women entirely uncritically as a representation of Spartan culture pre-490.
That is the very first thing he does and it causes me physical pain.
Also, he's calling Sparta a warrior culture, which...I hate Sparta. A lot. I am on record on this point.
But even I would contend that the Spartans were soldiers, not warriors.
Sanctions have their uses (mostly actually as a diplomatic tool for bloc-building, I'd argue), but as a means of suasion, they really only work on issues an adversary considers relatively unimportant.
That said, I think there is a tendency to confuse sanctions-as-suasion vs. sanctions-as-economic-warfare (not being made by @EmmaMAshford here, to be clear), because we often pretend we're doing the former when we're really doing the later.
"We are going to intentionally crater the economy of X so they have less resources to do Y" is a fairly reasonable strategic maneuver, but not a very politic one given that 1) the pain falls on regular people and 2) admitting the goal is essentially admitting to hostilities.