[J.D. Crawford]

Many will be familiar with the famous 3rd century BC sculpture, 'The Dying Gaul'. There's a picture here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Dying_gaul.jpg

I just noticed the sword on the ground next to the warrior. It appears to have an S shaped crossguard and a broad diamond section blade with a central ridge. At first glance it looks relatively modern for such an ancient statue.

Does anyone know if some real Celtic swords of this type have been found, or is there some artistic license here?

-JD

[Thomas Watt]

This is a Hellenistic Period (post Alexander pre-Roman Conquest) piece.
It's entirely possible that the sculptor never saw a Gaul and worked from models posed and descriptions of what they should look like.
(This area of art history was one of the areas I focused on during my graduate work, but I am NOT an expert)
As a result of the workshop process, the sword might well have been provided by the patron or have been just one available. It's fairly certain that the artist worked from life models.

[Jared Smith]

I am not an authoritarian on the subject, but would like to paraphrase some observations that archeologists and historians (including period Roman authors) about Roman era Gauls and weapons of that time.

The Gauls were occasionally described as possessing swords or spathas that were longer and broader than the Romans' swords, in addition to their wide variety of long knives. The quality of their swords (easily bending) was also noted as poor during the B.C., early A.D. centuries, but possibly (my speculation) to have improved with Roman contact and access to higher quality trade materials. Examples of surviving sword fragments, suggest that ones very roughly similar in general blade proportion (not familiar with that guard style) to what you see in the statue , have been dated as far back as the 5th century B.C. (a "Celtic chieftain's sword found at a burial site in Northern Italy.) Many authors describe the Romans as adapting longer length more substantial spathas, piled construction, and even cavalry exercises/ tactics from the Germanic tribes that integrated into their own legions. This influence and integration seems to have been significant in the late 1st through 4th centuries.

Near the end of the 2nd century era, metallurgical technology as well as written evidence (Natural Historia volumes) indicate that the Roman Empire had a pretty darn good awareness of many surprisingly good alloys, their properties, and trade arrangements to get very good carbon content steel. Within the last few years, archeological examinations of crucible steel smelting sites in Turkmenistan have revealed highly alloyed materials with just about optimum carbon contents (0.8% to 1.5%) that were in fact being made at the location and time identified as the Roman trade source (Parthia) in the Natural Historia.

I figure many will disagree with these theories or characterizations. I don't assert that they were necessarily "the average or norm of the day", just traits that possibly did exist in some percentage of Gaul equipment which were commented on at the time, and appear to have a plausible basis. Although the statue pictured is a copy (3rd century era), it was supposed copied from an original dating to around the 2nd century B.C. era. Throughout the time frame of the original and the copy, characterizations consistent with the idea of larger spathas, as well as enormous stature of some Germanic tribes occurred.

A separate, but good related question might be what the classic Roman "pedite" (foot soldier's) spatha really looked like prior to the invasion of Gaul. My own suspicion (based on scaling with a ruler from period images, and some idea of period anatomical size) is that it was probably only 15 to 18 inches long. I have no idea what length the cavalry / auxilliary ones would have been.

[Kirk Lee Spencer]

I have a very vague memory of reading that the base of this sculpture may have been from a later period... Maybe Renaissance, and thus the more modern looking sword.

ks

[Jonathan Hopkins]

[Jared Smith]

As I understand it, of all of the exhibits in the museum of Terme, this is one of two individual pieces considered most reliably authentic to 3rd century B.C. work.

The issue gets complicated as it has been reproduced and displayed elsewhere in a variety of circumstances (plaster, etc.) through the 19th century. Luckily, the details of actual sculpted pieces here are considered very solidly accepted as "B.C." era work. I doubt anyone can prove rather or not the artist got carried away and was a millenia futuristic in his creation. Given the level of perfection and attention to detail/ proportion elsewhere, I would be really hesitant to lightly dismiss the details of the sword.

[Elnathan Barnett]

I am pretty positive that the base and sword is Rennaissance or later. I can't remember where I read it either! I know I have though.

Wikipedia, that everpresent source of dubious information, says "The present base was added after its rediscovery" (1st paragraph).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_Gaul
Take it for what it is worth.... I think it is right, though.

[Jonathan Hopkins]

I am pretty sure that I first heard this in one of my classics/art history courses in college, but that does not do us any good because I cannot cite a source other than wikipedia as Elnathan did. Darn! I believe the wiki article is correct in stating that he base is a Renaissance addition. I don't think anyone is suggesting that a 3rd Century BC sculptor crafted a "futuristic" sword style.

Jonathan

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Dan Dickinson]

This very question of the sword has bothered me also, since I first saw the sculpture. I would be inclined to believe the "later-added base" theory except for the fact that some objects on it seem accurate ....i.e. the spined-boss shield. If the renaissance sculptor would miss the target so wide on what we think should be an accurate sword, what's the chance that he would somehow happen to get the shield right? This tends to make me think that perhaps both sword and shield stand a fair chance of being original.

Just a thought,
Dan

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

As far as I know, the statue was rediscovered in the 17th century after which the base was added. The type of sword depicted definately isn't anything they had in the time the statue itself was made. But then in the 17th century they didn't really know much about what type of swords were used in which period in history. Anything that was found and which was old was often automatically considered to be Roman. So it's possible the sword and other artifacts are based on finds they knew about to be "Roman" artifacts, while most are much later.

[Thomas Watt]

[Russ Ellis]

[Thomas Watt]

[Jared Smith]

I am wondering if the article you read may have been The Pergamene "Little Barbarians" and Their Roman and Renassance Legacy; by Manolis Korres? He traces the history of 10 original barbarian sculptures from known origins (several I thought were gathered at the Garden of Sallust very shortly after completion) to something like 5 present day museums. The sword and statue looks convincingly like continuous base marble. Any seam is pretty difficult to detect! I am wondering what portion is the 17th century added base?

The pommel and guard detail is better examined from behind the dying trumpeter.

[Jonathan Hopkins]

Here is another shot from behind that shows the construction of the base:

[Thomas Watt]

[J.D. Crawford]

Thanks All, for the comments and interesting discussion.

When I first noticed this sword depiction the blade seemed plausibly authentic in theory. I don't know much about ancient Celtic weapons but of course Romans had diamond-section blades, and Oakeshott makes several references to ancient barbarian cut-and-thrust blades being remarkably similar in style and quality to late medieval swords (e.g. type XVIII). But the few that he shows have a very different hilt construction...the more hourglass style, nothing like this. And then there are the anthropomorphic hilts that one sees connected with iron-age Celtic cultures.

The sword beneath the statue just did not look right for the period, especially the hilt.

Add in the factor that the sculpture base may in fact be quite modern...that really confuses things (or explains them if it is definite).

I would still like to know more about any web or book references for real iron-age Celtic or Germanic weapons. These seem to be very sparse compared to sources for Viking and Medieval periods. The historical descriptions I have come across talk about Celtic weapons being relatively long and soft-bladed, but don't give much clue as to style. As a result, I find it hard to judge which of the modern replicas are historical and which are just fancy.

[David McElrea]

Hi J.D.,

There are a number of threads on this forum discussing Celtic swords. Try this one for starters:

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...ght=celtic

[Russ Ellis]