+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Another Apulo-Corinthian conundrum (/showthread.php?tid=12048)
Another Apulo-Corinthian conundrum - Tarbicus - 03-12-2008
In the description of this helmet I noticed a very striking part:
http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion ... at49_A.txt
Quote:The chinstrap attachment consists of two lateral holes, and a third in the neck guard.These helmets are often described as being held on with a chinstrap, and are stated to have not had cheek pieces. What I can't figure out is why there would be a need for a hole in the neckguard, if not for a typical strap or thong that ran from the neckguard to cheek pieces, like a montefortino.
There is a theory out there that many helmets were spolia, and were decommissioned by removing the cheek pieces. I'm also sure I've seen a helmet that had cheek pieces attached by single rivets (a montefortino?).
Just to emphasise what i'm talking about, here's another:
http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion ... at49_A.txt
Quote:Holes for attaching a chinstrap are visible on each side, and another hole pierces the neck guard.
Anyone got an opinion?
Re: Another Apulo-Corinthian conundrum - Peroni - 03-12-2008
Ring for carrying?
Re: Another Apulo-Corinthian conundrum - Tarbicus - 03-12-2008
Given the number of helmets with cheek pieces, the number of helmets that had cheek pieces but are now missing, and the number of helmets of these periods that had carrying rings, Okkam's Razor says not likely to me. But, if there are examples of carrying rings in the Republican period I'm open to the suggestion.
Re: Another Apulo-Corinthian conundrum - M. Demetrius - 03-12-2008
Could the holes be those that once housed rivets?