Mainz Gallic G eyebrows all wrong??

[M. Demetrius]

Drat. I meant to say "ENTOmologist", not HERPEtologist.

That would have made more sense, if anything makes any sense in a lame pun. :?

[Tarbicus]

Jim, you called him a herpetologist?

I don't get it, but if you do, I won't ask, won't tell. :? wink:

Not at all, David. I meant it in the common English vernacular way, meaning it's a more polite way of saying "Oh s**t!", or calling someone a bad name :wink:

Ade's right though, and well spotted. Laudes already awarded.

[Primvs Pavlvs]

But why? What's the issue with one less indentation in the metal? .

I agree Matt, but there are those who complain about the 4th ridge in the rear of most Deepeeka early helmets.

[Crispvs]

I always thought that the eyebrows on the Gallic 'G' were odd (all the others Robinson shows have either one ridge or three). Thanks for spotting that Peronis.

Incidentally, Robinson himself pointed out that apart from the angle of the neck guard the Gallic 'G' and the Gallic 'H' are so similar that they could easily be seen as a single type.

Crispvs

[Praefectusclassis]

I just looked at the original photos again, Ade, and I'm not so sure. As the helmet is in a glass box, you get terrible reflections that mess up what you see on the photo (see my arm there?). If you look on the other side of the helmet, you'll see that there are two pronounced ridges and on the left side the helmet may bulge a bit between them, but I'm not sure there's supposed to be a third eyebrow.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Byron wrote..

Would be nice to be able to see the actual helmet. that would help answer the question I guess. Know anyone at mainz?

The colour pictures in the first post are of the original Byron :wink:

Yes I did realise that. )

[jkaler48]

Is there any effort by any museum to apply modern laser topograhical scanning to any Roman helmets? Date derived from such an effort
would allow near exact dimensional reconstructions to be attempted.
Why on earth are we still looking at 100 year old sketches poor photographs
and dubious and conflicting measurements in this modern age? Are custodians of these items hoarding information or are they just too broke to
or too uninterested to upgrade available information? At least new finds should get more modern documentation when published why continue
19th century practice in the 21st?

[Praefectusclassis]

Are custodians of these items hoarding information or are they just too broke to or too uninterested to upgrade available information?

Possibly. Or because the interest in exact measurements is relatively small. Objectively speaking, we don't learn very much more about Roman material culture by measuring a helmet that precisely, do we? Besides, many of the helmets you see in museums have been restored in some way, or deformed by the ravages of time. Is it a testament to the hammer of an ancient Roman if there's a vaguely visible third eyebrow, or is that due to pressure of the ground it was in?

[PhilusEstilius]

I think that I am inclined to agree with Jasper in the first place that photographs thro' glass can tend to distort what we see. I would even say that Deepeeka got the eyebrows right in the first place as there are only two, however they got it wrong with the second hook on the rear of the bowl the original does not have this.

[Peroni]

Sorry Brian and Jasper but I'm sticking to my guns on this one! Side-on right side there is clearly three ridges on the right eyebrow as seen on the left. No distortion on the glass in this shot.

You can see the same feature in the picture Jasper posted as well. :wink:

As for the secod hook, it may not have survived, but contemporary helmets such as the Cremona Italic C have two hooks, so HRR made the (reasonable) assumption that originally the Mainz helmet had two.

[Doc]

Peroni,

Is there a hole for the second hook on the back of the bowl? This would be diagnostic to a certain degree.

This is how some have arrived to the conclusion that the Gallic D could have been a centurio helmet. It has no holes on the front nor back of the bowl suggesting the crest was transverse.

[Doc]

Peroni,

I also agree about the three ridges now that you have pointed it out on this photo. They appear to be similar to the C where the lower ridge is wider than the upper two that are narrower and closer together.

[jkaler48]

Side by side there is a good bit of difference between the Worms Gallic G
and the (deepeeka) Maniz version Gallic Gallic G
Shorter bowl?
Eyebrows
Cheek Guards narrower
Brass? Rivets holding Browguard on etc

There are so many good Gallic helmet types now available that development of a Worms version may not be economical but it is a nice looking variation.

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Ade
We'll have to agree to disagree until someone goes back there again. I've been photographing helmets in museum display cases too long now to not be suspicious of reflections. Again, that helmet is in a all around glass display case with lighting from several directions. It's definitely not just my jacket that's being reflected there.

[PhilusEstilius]

I have not seen any evidence of holes at the back of this helmet that would indicate a hook or a plate to carry a ring attachment. Also Adrian where you are thinking there is another eyebrow is not the case, for what I would consider you are seeing is the Convex shape of the large lower eyebrow section.