Painted legionary helmets?

[Magnus]

i don't buy that for one minute. If you want to look and compare them to every other helmet that does have eyes on them, then they're way out in left field, unless the helmet was designed around Admirall Akbar's head:



If they're inspired by eyes...ok. That's a whole different matter though, for they're not made to really look like eyes...and why have the same ones on the back then? Sounds more like decoration to me. In anycase, it's not enough to go on by a long shot.

And conal, if you want to post pictures, set up an account at www.photobucket.com then you can post all kinds of pictures, and movies if you want.

[Tarbicus]

and why have the same ones on the back then?

But they're not the same, they've been put on differently and have no corresponding arch of jewels above that clearly represent eyebrows.

[Praefectusclassis]

Conal, you can also use the Image attachment function right here on RAT.

[Magnus]

Hold on though...it's just your opinion tarbi that says they're eyebrows right? Has someone with a PhD verified this? I mean if they haven't, then it's open to any interpretation. And since the eyes on a helmet theme seems to be pretty darn rare in the roman method of helmet decoration, why without anything solid as far as other references or evidence, can you say they're eyeballs?

What then, are all the other jewels supposed to be? Did people have 8 sets of eyes back then? My point is that there's an awful lot on that helmet then that represents nothing or something else that aren't eyes. If so, then what? Without clarification or justification it's not fair to say that those big ones in front are eyes and the jewels above them are eyebrows, given the rest of the decorations on the helmet.

[Tarbicus]

Actually Matt, I'm well within my rights to use the evidence of my own eyes and say "I think they are eyes. There is no question in my mind." Read my opening post on the thread.

They are not the same jewels as the rear ones because they are orientated differently, and have arches above them, which the rear ones don't. If the jewels were in reverse (front to back) then I would have doubts. But as they stand there is absolutely no doubt in my head. What you're saying is similar to saying "They're not eyebrows on those Gallics, they're wings."

[Tarbicus]

And what does having a PhD have to do with it? You can dump 95% of the entire forum's posts if that's the case.

[Razor]

What then, are all the other jewels supposed to be? Did people have 8 sets of eyes back then? My point is that there's an awful lot on that helmet then that represents nothing or something else that aren't eyes. If so, then what? Without clarification or justification it's not fair to say that those big ones in front are eyes and the jewels above them are eyebrows, given the rest of the decorations on the helmet.

I think that not all jeweled helmets need to have eyes and that this Berkasovo is toying with the idea of having eyes on the helmet in the appearance of jewels.

[Magnus]

My point about the PhD Tarbi is that without an expert's opinion on the subject matter in this particular case, it's hard to be accurate in assessing what they are or aren't. Especially given the lack of evidence concerning the use of the "eyeball" theme in roman helmets...eyebrows aside.

So based on that, I'd just be careful about saying "X" must be "A" without something else to back it up and certainly in this particular helmet's instance because of all the other jewels on it.

[Tarbicus]

I see your point, but some things don't need a paper to be written on them merely to confirm what is plainly clear as day. Stylisation is a common factor in ancient art and decoration, geometric shapes being one of the most common. Anthropormorphic stylisation is something we also see, not least of all on Gallic helmets in the form of the eyebrows, and the cheeks on the cheek pieces. Given that jewels were to be used then what is on the helmet makes complete sense as representing eyebrows. They are not intended to mirror the rear arrangement by the simple fact that they are different.

Cavalry helmets with complete facemasks, or ears on the cheek pieces. Gallic helmets with eyebrows and cheeks. But most importantly, eyes on late Roman helmets of the same period as the Berkasovo.

Given the specific orientation and arrangement they can be nothing else but meant to represent eyes and eyebrows in my opinion as an artist of 22 years experience :wink:

[Magnus]

I didn't know the Romans were stationed in India...lol

[Magnus]

Oh, and by the way, I'd laugh if what we consider to be eyebrows on all of the gallic helms did in fact turn out to be something else. My eyebrows sure don't look like that...lol.

Maybe they're supposed to be representative of the lines in a scowling person's forehead, or a brow knotted in anger. :wink:

[Tarbicus]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Magnus]

Hey...run a google image search on "angry face", and tell me there isn't a resemblance in some people's forheads to the "eyebrow" on gallic helmets.

Looking fierce or angry was a warrior fad...how do we know what we've thought were eyebrows wasn't in fact something to do with a facial expression? Especially in battle?

[Dan Diffendale]

Wow! Is that helmet really of Lombard age? Compare this Etruscan example of many hundreds of years prior...

[Caius Fabius]

No offense, but what is a PhD except proof that you actually wrote a dissertation that your advisers approved and then defended your thesis? It does not suddenly make a person smarter!

Would you like someone with a PhD in latin literature telling you how to make a helmet? Should you let a PhD in Military history who has never been in the military, and who abhors war, violence and bloodshed tell you how a Roman miles felt, or what he was thinking? I can name the PhD's I would accept as an authority on eyes on helmets without using all of my fingers to keep count!

Sometimes PhD's actually mean that someone has spent so much time in 'school' that they need help in the real world! Reminds me of the virgin with the PhD in Sex Ed. Lots of good reading, no experience. :twisted: