Making a Corinthian Helm?

[Paullus Scipio]

Greek helmets constantly evolved , as did the metallurgy. Early Corinthian helmets were 'softer' and 'heavier', weighing 1.25-1.6kg in the early sixth century--they mostly conformed to the skull e.g the "Milos" type I illustrated in 'Warfare in the Classical World", or no.'s 9 and 11 on p.61 of Connolly's "Greece and Rome at War".

The Late Corinthian first appears around 530 b.c., distinguished by it's central peak and offset from forehead and sides by a curving ridge, and tends to weigh around 0.9 kg, and it is thinner and cold-worked, making it harder than the earlier types. (c.f. the U.S WW2 steel helmet at 1.11 kg).

It is also difficult to generalise because these helmets were all made individually "to order".

They also differed in thickness in different parts ( like modern tank armour).

A study of several dozen, from Olympia ( dedications) revealed the following details for Late Corinthian helmets........

Cheeks : generally around 0.75 mm, but up to 1.25 mm

Around the eyes: generally around 1.25 mm, but up to 1.75 mm

Nasal top: around 2.75-3.75 mm, but one had 5 mm

Nasal bottom: 4.0-5.0 mm but one 3.75 and another only 1.5 mm

Forehead: 1.0 mm-2mm

Temple: 0.75-1.0 mm

Neck: 0.75-1.75 mm, (avge around 0.75 mm)

As can be seen, these were marvels of technology, combining just the right hardness and thickness to provide good protection for the lightest possible helmet. ( without being "weapon proof" - the makers recognising that a heavy enough blow, even if it did not 'penetrate', would still kill by precussive effect)

[Paullus Scipio]

Hey guys, none of those was the one I was thinking of and now can't seem to find (funny how I would always come across it when I didn't want it). It had a line of rivets going from just right of the nasal back over the top of the crown as though put together in two halves like an Illyrian, but offset to the right. I did come across this helmet, which is similar to the one Matt posted above. Its from Axel Guttman's collection.

Fairly obviously, neither of those helmets you posted was made the way they are now, and neither was made 'in two parts' .......the 'irregular' cracks/fault-lines demonstrate that beyond doubt. The visible rivets in the first one were almost certainly 'modern restoration' following discovery. From the 'offset to the right' of the other helmet you describe, I would be skeptical that itwas made that way - being unlikely to have been made in assymetrical 'halves'...

[Kineas]

Been away and missed this very exciting thread....

When I said that I could put a spear through cast bronze, I meant "cast bronze of the thickness you see in Corinthian helms." I agree (again! Ouch!) with Paul M-S that they are marvels of technology with each part the thickness that it needs to be--but no part of them is thick enough to warrant using pure "cast" bronze. However, I couldn't put a spear through 6 mm of cast bronze. Perhaps Herakles could.

I'd guess that some of the hardening would have come with planishing. The planishing stage is what I THINK we are seeing in the vases above int his thread and also in the gold-foil Etruscan necklace that illustrates a helmet maker at work. I wish I had a picture of that to share, but the best I can do is a citation, if anyone wants it.

I've either handled or looked very, very closely at only about a dozen original helmets and I've become very cautious about what is original since my discovery of how many of these helmets were altered in the 19th century (sometimes by professional fakers, sometimes by armorers) but in general my impression is that no part is heavier than it needs to be.

Now, as I fight in this stuff with full weight weapons, I'll say that I got my nose broken late last summer by a blow to the nose guard by a shield rim--and my nose guard had already been reinforced with a piece of spring steel and another piece of 16 gauge bronze. Since then, we (my group) have gotten very serious about the weight and manufacture of our helmets (no Deepeeka product need apply) and the heavier nasals make more sense. However, I'd have to wonder--why not just braise them on? The "bowl" of the helmet is not the "hard part" to fabricate, and pre-forming the bowl by casting seems--well, like a lot of work, if you are sand-casting bronze. On the other hand, I think you could do that,m with the nasal already cast--even as a protrusion from a tear-drop shaped thick shape--and then forge your helmet from there. Casting the skull to anything like a finished thickness and shape sounds very, very difficult, to me. But someone should try it and write us a treatise!

[PMBardunias]

Fairly obviously, neither of those helmets you posted was made the way they are now, and neither was made 'in two parts' .......the 'irregular' cracks/fault-lines demonstrate that beyond doubt.

I agree, my question was wether this represented a repair in period or a modern attempt at reconstruction. I have seen a number of damaged helms with big bronze patches riveted to them which are so utilitarian and unsightly that they are likely not modern. That last one I showed with the two halves riveted together is in the museum at Olympia, so I assume that somebody thought it was authentic. It could be an ancient repair job though.

[Paullus Scipio]

Philus Estilius wrote:

I would of course go along with Christian where he says that various helmets may well have been cast.

Let us clarify this a little. What Christian suggested was that the 'first stage' was a cast skullcap shape, which was then worked repeatedly by heating and hammering. I was able to confirm this from the fact that the thickness varies in different parts, but is quite thin ( I'm sure Kineas, me or anyone else would have no trouble in driving a spear though cast, un-work-hardened bronze 0.75-1mm thick), and to put the matter beyond any reasonable doubt, there is the scientific analysis report on construction whose conclusion I quoted earlier in the thread.

Infact in the Connoly book Greece and Rome at War there is a very nice picture of just such a cast one

I presume you mean the full-page photo of the right profile of a late Corinthian on P.62? That helmet is not 'cast' as such, but has been made in the fashion just described i.e. beginning with a cast bowl and then repeatedly heated/hammered, and finally planished until the final shape is reached.(the greaves found with this helmet found in Sicily were made in a similar way). Parts of the surface have a 'cast' appearance, but that is due to corrosion. A close look at the neck-piece in particular reveals (just) slight traces of the hammering process......

Kineas wrote:

I've either handled or looked very, very closely at only about a dozen original helmets and I've become very cautious about what is original since my discovery of how many of these helmets were altered in the 19th century (sometimes by professional fakers, sometimes by armorers)

To re-inforce this, refer to the report and photo of my earlier post on the scientific analysis and see what tests are needed to discern original from 'restoration' ( in that case a modern 'restored' nasal). In fairness, because atitudes differed then, I believe most who carried out this type of work will have seen themselves as 'restorers' rather than 'fakers', with the objective of presenting a museum specimen 'as it would have looked' to the museum audience.....

Casting the skull to anything like a finished thickness and shape sounds very, very difficult, to me. But someone should try it and write us a treatise!

....that's an understatement !!! D lol: :lol: :lol:

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B. wrote:

I agree, my question was wether this represented a repair in period or a modern attempt at reconstruction. I have seen a number of damaged helms with big bronze patches riveted to them which are so utilitarian and unsightly that they are likely not modern.

...I would agree. A Corinthian helmet represented many hours of skilled work and expense - so was far too valuable to throw away if it could be slavaged/repaired, and often such a helmet in need of repair found itself far away from the skilled artisans who made them, hence a crude repair. The difficulty is telling ancient 'repair' from modern, and as can be seen from my earlier post, requires quite sophisticated scientific testing.....

Incidently, the testing process which proved so successful on the Manchester example was to be applied to a number of helmets at Olympia, so that 'ancient repairs' could be distinguished from relatively 'modern restoration'.

[Matthew Amt]

Okay, I'm starting to come around! More photos of the sides of nasals still don't do it for me (sorry, Stefanos!), because there's no way to be sure how that edge is achieved, but the descriptions from Giannis and Christian, and Paul's measurements, are convincing me. However, I still maintain that at least that one helmet in Philadelphia has a THIN nasal with an edging, either turned back or applied! There's a gap that you can see through easily. Thin metal. SO there was clearly more than one way to make these things (geez, assuming that one in Philly isn't a fake or bad restoration!!).

Once again, the ancient Greeks have decided that even the most difficult helmet in history to reproduce is still too easy, so they had to make it even harder...

Some sheet bronze items from the Bronze Age have pieces apparently cast onto them, such as handle loops on buckets, or crest knobs on some helmets. Apparently the sheet metal part was done first, then a wax model of the piece to be cast fixed in place, clay applied, etc., and the cast part is poured directly in place on the sheet metal. Boggles the mind, and I don't know if anyone has actually tried this for things like that. Is it possible that's what we're seeing here? I don't know if it would lead to seams visible by x-ray, or what. Just grasping at straws.

Well, I always said I love finding things that prove us all wrong! Now I get to replace my helmet, too, as well as my shield, my linothorax, my sword... Stupid hobby... (grump grump grump)

Thanks, folks! Great research.

Matthew

[Paullus Scipio]

Matthew wrote:

However, I still maintain that at least that one helmet in Philadelphia has a THIN nasal with an edging, either turned back or applied!

....and note that in support of that, one of the Olympia Late Corinthians measured had a nasal that was only 1.5 mm thick at the bottom....

[M. Demetrius]

one of the Olympia Late Corinthians measured had a nasal that was only 1.5 mm thick at the bottom....

Well, that might prevent a sharp blade from cutting one's nose, but it would surely bend under a hard blow to the face, allowing the nose to be broken, and with the metal bent inwards, would be very painful afterwards until (both nose and helmet were) repaired.

[Kineas]

Joe Piela at Lonely Mountain made my friend Greg Hauser a "plain Corinthian" with a riveted bowl (invisible seem) and the nasal was only about 1.5 mm thick--but heavily worked and stiffened by a slight dishing and a line around the edge of repousse. The result was--and is--immovable by even the heaviest blow. I assume a battle axe would sheer it off, but short of that....

My point here is that it is thin unhardened metal--like a Deepeeka helmet--that is at risk. Thin worked metal seems quite stable, as does thick cast metal.

Also like to see a survey of all existing helmets for period repairs, and what those repairs were. I suspect we could learn a great deal from such a survey.

[Matthew Amt]

one of the Olympia Late Corinthians measured had a nasal that was only 1.5 mm thick at the bottom....

Well, that might prevent a sharp blade from cutting one's nose, but it would surely bend under a hard blow to the face, allowing the nose to be broken, and with the metal bent inwards, would be very painful afterwards until (both nose and helmet were) repaired.

Not to be sounding *too* facetious, but how hard are you planning on being hit? Even 1mm of good bronze will protect your face from all sorts of blows that would otherwise leave you blind or hideously scarred, or dead! Clearly most Corinthians are reinforced well beyond that, but Illyrian and pilos helmets leave the face wide open, so a smack in the face doesn't seem to have been THE overriding factor for choosing a helmet back then. Keep your shield up!

Yeah, finding out more about repairs and fragments would be cool. Sometimes the broken bits and pieces tell us more than the perfect examples in the display cases!

Khairete,

Matthew

[Paullus Scipio]

Matt wrote:

Even 1mm of good bronze will protect your face from all sorts of blows that would otherwise leave you blind or hideously scarred, or dead!

.....Yup !! Just ask Kineas, who has endured some rather painful personal experience, as recounted above..... (sympathetic smilie !!! )

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Ok,some photos might help
I tried hard to take this oe in the National Museum in Athens. It may not be too clear in the photo but it was palin in the back,i'm sure. Note also that the eye brows are beaten from the inside,they're not cast.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2430/403 ... 291b_b.jpg
And some from the Guttmann collection:
This one though again not clear,part of the back of the nasal is visible and plain,not turned edges:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2421/403 ... 4056_o.jpg
Another very interesting helmet with re-inforced nasal. Note that even the earlier piece was thicker than the rest of the helmet.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2548/403 ... d843_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2442/403 ... e2e0_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2534/403 ... 71e5_o.jpg
And last but not least,note the "killed" helmet on top,from Olympia. The nasal is clearly solid.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2687/403 ... 70bd_b.jpg
However that last one gave me the idea,is it possible that the edges were iriginally turned and then filled with cast bronze? I don't have any idea if it can be done or not.
Khairete
Giannis

PS. Ok,one more if you don't mind:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2517/403 ... 793e_o.jpg
This one doesn't seem to have turned edges either,but another thing,note how thin the forehead is and how close to the nasal.

[Paullus Scipio]

Interestingly, a couple of those look to have had the nasal, already thick, re-inforced by 'doubling' on itself i.e. the nasal has been beaten out thickly, but twice as long, then bent over back on itself and hammered together....

[Kineas]

Giannis, those pictures are actually worth a thousand words.

Now that it has been brought to my attention how good the brazing is on period pieces, I wonder if the nasals aren't cast separately and brazed on? Again, easy enough to tell if you could use a loop on an original. When I visit my friend the collector I could look at his, but I'm not sure he HAS a thick nasal. It would be nice if he did, though!

The third photo down is remarkably like the "Marathon" helm at the ROM. Amazingly like it, and does a fine job of showing me what the back of the skull should have looked like...

And finally, what beautiful, crisp repousse! That top helmet--the eyebrows--would easily be mistaken for crisp casting. But I see the shadow of the interior--that's repousse! Wow--in a hundred years my work will NOT be that good.