03-02-2014, 06:20 PM
Hello folks,
I have spoken to Jeff about his helmet and he has already done work for me. He knows exactly the finish that ancient items require since when he presented me with the final product of my item, I accepted it without question....the finish was flawless. IF there is ANY deviation or apparent deviation, it is because either the customer wants it or the interpretation is such based on whatever evidence is available. In my opinion the craftsmanship of this helmet is outstanding....hands down.
Peter Connolly's book Greece and Rome at war, page 229, shows this exact helmet. If you look at his illustration....it is also incorrect because the left cheek piece has all brass decoration when in reality all the rosettes were silver. Not only this, but he has in the illustration a tie loop for the crest in the front suggesting that a crest would have gone front to back. Now where did these two supposed "mistakes" come from :? Well, the original article by Lindenschmitt which I would think Connolly read....no? Robinsons description is also not exactly the same as Lindenschmitt and Robinson did not even hold the helmet....just went off photos......like we do. So his interpretation is just as good as ours. :wink:
In the Lindenschmitt article, he only shows the left side of the helmet even though he had the helmet in his hands and did not show other views. But he did mention that the cheek piece with the brass elements was in fact a replacement part. So if this is the case, then why does every illustration that I have seen or reproduction of this helmet always show the "wrong" thing :???: I would say that this replacement cheek piece should be illustrated as an aside or along side another complete illustration that shows how it really was. I know that people illustrate exactly what is known to be found but if there is a written report to suggest otherwise.......... :whistle:
How about the tie loop for the crest in the Connolly illustration......its exactly what Jeff put in? For one thing, Lindenschmitt makes no mention of holes anywhere on this helmet to suggest the crest direction. In fact, if I recall correctly, neither does Robinson. If you couple this with another idea put forth by Lindenschmitt who says in his article that this helmet was NOT an officers helmet because it looks like it was thrown together AND that no officer would wear a helmet that had a different cheek piece and all these sorts of metals thrown together......are you surprised that Connolly presents his helmet for use by a normal milites AND that he included some sort of tie loop?
I believe....and there is no evidence that I can produce for this.....that the corrosion closed what could have been holes used for tie loops on the Gallic D. Many people would disagree with me but where is their evidence? The article says nothing....Robinson does not specify either........AND the photos we have from Robinson are poor quality and in the shadow so we cannot see anything with respect to holes. However, there is PLENTY of circumstantial evidence from all the other Gallic helmets of the period. Every single one that I can think of....Gallic C, Gallic G, Gallic F Sisak, Besancon, Gallic A, Gallic I, Aquincum.....did I miss any?? ALL have loops or in the case of the G hooks, to hold down the crest. I would be VERY hard pressed to believe that the only helmet without some sort of tie down was the Gallic D. So I think that Connolly may be correct but it is also possible that it could have had tie loops for a transverse crest. Even if you have a three pronged crest holder, that will only help with sliding not popping out.....the purpose of the tie loops or hooks.
So, why do people use it as a centurio helmet? For one thing its very ornate. Short of the silver sheet applied to the Gallic F of Sisak, they are pretty close in ornateness. But time again, ornateness does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it belonged to an officer.
Some other folks point to the double slotted crest holder. But this does not mean anything because the Gallic C has a double slotted crest holder but the crest was front to back. We know this because certain color photos do show that the conservator filled the holes. The Gallic F from Sisak....the only known true centurio helmet, has a slot similar to the Italic D. So we cannot use this as the reason.
The other main reason is the absence of the holes not mentioned anywhere (see post above). Even if someone said NO holes, does not mean there were not any. That long in the ground....who knows with rust, corrosion and the like.
Jeff has already given a plausible explanation for the iron peak. So there is no need to go there.
The enamel is represented as opaque in most original examples and as Christian mentioned, Jeff's idea of the cabochon is rather interesting. Most likely very plausible.
Cheers
I have spoken to Jeff about his helmet and he has already done work for me. He knows exactly the finish that ancient items require since when he presented me with the final product of my item, I accepted it without question....the finish was flawless. IF there is ANY deviation or apparent deviation, it is because either the customer wants it or the interpretation is such based on whatever evidence is available. In my opinion the craftsmanship of this helmet is outstanding....hands down.
Peter Connolly's book Greece and Rome at war, page 229, shows this exact helmet. If you look at his illustration....it is also incorrect because the left cheek piece has all brass decoration when in reality all the rosettes were silver. Not only this, but he has in the illustration a tie loop for the crest in the front suggesting that a crest would have gone front to back. Now where did these two supposed "mistakes" come from :? Well, the original article by Lindenschmitt which I would think Connolly read....no? Robinsons description is also not exactly the same as Lindenschmitt and Robinson did not even hold the helmet....just went off photos......like we do. So his interpretation is just as good as ours. :wink:
In the Lindenschmitt article, he only shows the left side of the helmet even though he had the helmet in his hands and did not show other views. But he did mention that the cheek piece with the brass elements was in fact a replacement part. So if this is the case, then why does every illustration that I have seen or reproduction of this helmet always show the "wrong" thing :???: I would say that this replacement cheek piece should be illustrated as an aside or along side another complete illustration that shows how it really was. I know that people illustrate exactly what is known to be found but if there is a written report to suggest otherwise.......... :whistle:
How about the tie loop for the crest in the Connolly illustration......its exactly what Jeff put in? For one thing, Lindenschmitt makes no mention of holes anywhere on this helmet to suggest the crest direction. In fact, if I recall correctly, neither does Robinson. If you couple this with another idea put forth by Lindenschmitt who says in his article that this helmet was NOT an officers helmet because it looks like it was thrown together AND that no officer would wear a helmet that had a different cheek piece and all these sorts of metals thrown together......are you surprised that Connolly presents his helmet for use by a normal milites AND that he included some sort of tie loop?
I believe....and there is no evidence that I can produce for this.....that the corrosion closed what could have been holes used for tie loops on the Gallic D. Many people would disagree with me but where is their evidence? The article says nothing....Robinson does not specify either........AND the photos we have from Robinson are poor quality and in the shadow so we cannot see anything with respect to holes. However, there is PLENTY of circumstantial evidence from all the other Gallic helmets of the period. Every single one that I can think of....Gallic C, Gallic G, Gallic F Sisak, Besancon, Gallic A, Gallic I, Aquincum.....did I miss any?? ALL have loops or in the case of the G hooks, to hold down the crest. I would be VERY hard pressed to believe that the only helmet without some sort of tie down was the Gallic D. So I think that Connolly may be correct but it is also possible that it could have had tie loops for a transverse crest. Even if you have a three pronged crest holder, that will only help with sliding not popping out.....the purpose of the tie loops or hooks.
So, why do people use it as a centurio helmet? For one thing its very ornate. Short of the silver sheet applied to the Gallic F of Sisak, they are pretty close in ornateness. But time again, ornateness does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it belonged to an officer.
Some other folks point to the double slotted crest holder. But this does not mean anything because the Gallic C has a double slotted crest holder but the crest was front to back. We know this because certain color photos do show that the conservator filled the holes. The Gallic F from Sisak....the only known true centurio helmet, has a slot similar to the Italic D. So we cannot use this as the reason.
The other main reason is the absence of the holes not mentioned anywhere (see post above). Even if someone said NO holes, does not mean there were not any. That long in the ground....who knows with rust, corrosion and the like.
Jeff has already given a plausible explanation for the iron peak. So there is no need to go there.
The enamel is represented as opaque in most original examples and as Christian mentioned, Jeff's idea of the cabochon is rather interesting. Most likely very plausible.
Cheers
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)
Paolo
Paolo
