09-05-2006, 01:12 AM
I don't think it is correct to say eyes were painted on all those late Roman helmets in which they are not embossed. Several helmets of the late period, such as Deurne were never intended to have eyes. We therefore do not know how important having eyes would be from a religious or superstitious point of view. It may have been purely decorative, or some soldiers were less superstitious than others. Rank should not be a factor here, for the large round jewels of Berkasova 1 and Budapest are clearly intended to be "eyes".
There is excellent evidence for painted Hellenistic helmets, particularly Macedonian, but very little suggestion of paint on Roman ones.
It would be difficult for painted design to last very long on the smooth surface of a metal helmet. It is possible that the many etched designs seen of early Italian helmets, could have been a base for a painted deisgn, but there is no indication of this on imperial era service helmets.
The helmets of the ancient world which seem to have been painted the most seem tare those seen c
There is excellent evidence for painted Hellenistic helmets, particularly Macedonian, but very little suggestion of paint on Roman ones.
It would be difficult for painted design to last very long on the smooth surface of a metal helmet. It is possible that the many etched designs seen of early Italian helmets, could have been a base for a painted deisgn, but there is no indication of this on imperial era service helmets.
The helmets of the ancient world which seem to have been painted the most seem tare those seen c
