First Sneak Peek at the Dioskouri Corinthian

[caiusbeerquitius]

Dioskouri has made the most accurate "copy" of a 5th century B.C. ("Denda" class - along the lines of the Denda helmet in the Munich Museum) Corinthian.

Bill, you keep stating this, however, I would like to point out that I seriously doubt this statement. Where the Dioskouri helmet indeed has an excellent shape and is of one piece it on the other side seems not to be manufactured in an authentic manner, as I have shown in detail, and seems to be way too heavy in comparison to the originals or e.g. the Manning helmets.

There are (without argument) many different periods and helmet types that have been found,

yes, indeed.

many were created in totally different fashions.

please specify what you mean by "totally". I think this is a bit drastically. In genera it seems that a cast raw form was worked over with different hammers and such brought into a final form. Also "sheet metal" first was cast, of course, just the "sheet" was not always a "sheet".

To cite one particular group (i.e. Olympia) of relics doesn't accurately apply to ALL artifact helmets. Many of the helmets found at Olympia were strictly votive, ergo light and thin as proclaimed, as they never were intended to see battle.

Could you please back up this statement somehow? Do we have evidence for a votive helmet production in Ancient Greece? Many of the helmets in Olympia have inscriptions such as "Taken from XY at the battle of XY". This speaks strongly against what you say here.

Naturally, not all battle-worthy helmets are the same weight and thickness either.

Absolutely. However, as I have shown and quoted the helmets weights (and not only those from olympia) are within a quite specific weight range, which is between 900g and 1300g, the majority of the helmets just around 1000g. This is a documented fact.

Dioskouri has stated that new bronze (that which has not been in the ground for 2,400 years) is denser, therefore heavier than artifact bronze, which has had much of its inner matrix leached out by the surrounding environment over the ages - this is a physical fact.

Yes, that was stated, but as I have shown it is not true. Like with all other artefacts we have some that are corroded more, some which are corroded less or corroded hardly at all. If we want to see how the originals were, we can naturally only look at the objects with little or no corrosion. This is the case for the Olympia-group I quoted. This group has also at the same time helmets from all different kinds of Corinthian helmet types in it, so offers not only a chronological overview, but also geographical overview, as helmets from all over the mediterranean were brought to Olympia.

This is why some artifacts weigh more than others and would explain the difference in weight of (say) a Vergina relic helmet to that of (say) an Olympia relic helmet of the same thickness.

Can you please back this in my opinion not true statement back up with any evidence? All restoration-publications I have read contradict this statement. As it is, corrosion increases the volume of an artifact. So a corroded artefact was naturally thinner than it is in its corroded state. This can be very well seen on the right cheek-guard of the Denda-helmet in Munich. Where it is corroded, it is much thicker.

A lot of the helmets shown as lighter examples are of the lotus group - these were not made the same as Classical Period helmets and were naturally much lighter because of their hammered sheet construction. They have little or NO cranation line which was added for strength in the Classical Period. This also made it impossible to construct this type (Denda class) helmet solely with hammers.

Nobody said that the Denda helmet types were solely made with hammers. I showed in detail that the helmets apparently were made from a pre-cast shape which was the worked over with hammers and brought to shape.

To lump all relic helmets into the same category for the sake of argument is irresponsible.

I just have explained that I didn´t do this. The Denda helmet after which the Dioskouri-helmet is modeled is from Sicily. It also weighs just over 1kg, its top and backside have a material thickness of around 0.5mm only. It shows no signs of corrosion other than on its right cheek piece. The inner side of the Denda helmet is covered with hammer marks as well. The back and top of the Denda helmet are also much thinner than the frontal part.

[attachment=5597]DSC02756.JPG[/attachment]


You can see the hammer marks inside through the eye holes in this picture:

[attachment=5598]DSC02757.JPG[/attachment]

Even earlier helmet types already show the feature of the thinner back and top, as can be seen e.g. on this other sample from Munich, just look at how these areas look like.


[attachment=5599]DSC02755.JPG[/attachment]

The door should remain open to all possibilities of construction until all the artifacts are discovered (to date, about 1% have been found).

Well, yes, of course. But if we want to call something "authentic", as the term requires, there is a necessity to relate to an original object, with which we can compare the thing we call "authentic". As I have shown several times now, if the Dioskouri helmet is made by casting and grinding alone, it is not "authentic".

It is not inaccurate to claim authenticity when there is such a wide arena from which to draw evidence. You have seen the pictures.

As I said, if you claim authenticity you should be able to show it and proove it. I think that it is very doubtful that the Dioskouri helmets are "authentic" as advertised. I did show, however, how "authentic" helmets could be made.