Sculpture from Volterra Museum

[marcii ulpi messala]

I have seen an original painting in the wall of an Etruscan tomb, there makes up this hull adorned with horns of bull, is it possible that these irons are the subordination of these horns of bull and not of the pens of the eagle?

Yo he visto una pintura original en la pared de una etrusca tumba, se pinta este casco adornado con cuernos de toro, ¿Es posible que estos hierros sean la sujeción de estos cuernos de toro y no de las plumas del águila?

[Graham Sumner]

Hello Gabriel

You have raised some interesting points but I do not totally agree.

I do not believe that the system of grasp of the straps of the montefortino that the gentleman Graham draws is the most correct. 1 º) the check piece that it draws are curved, adapted to the anatomy of the face, in the reality they are always flats little adapted for the form of subordination that the gentleman Graham draws.

Indeed as you say the cheek pieces are flat but there is plenty of photographic evidence of reconstructed examples, (See Legions of Augustus by Junkelmann) especially when tied tightly and original sources such as your own Avatar which shows that viewed from the front or slightly to one side they appear curved.

2 º) hereby, the straps would be very easy to cut for a sword, leaving the free helmet, the straps should have spent crusades under the jaw, and appear under the button in the opposite check piece, I drew these systems in a previous post, of this form the straps would not remain exposed to the cut of the sword.

The system of fastening in the reconstruction follows the famous bust of Phyrrus, whose helmet cheek pieces are fastened this way.

Hope this helps.
Graham.

[Dan Diffendale]

I have seen an original painting in the wall of an Etruscan tomb, there makes up this hull adorned with horns of bull, is it possible that these irons are the subordination of these horns of bull and not of the pens of the eagle?

It's actually a Campanian tomb from Nola, but here's a picture anyhow:

[Peroni]

And the type of helmet that the horns fit to..
A case of "Pimp my helm"..

[Crispvs]

Peronis,

Am I just being very forgetfull or am I justified in asking where the items in that last image came from. I recall a similar pair of horns in the Guttmann collection but it that case I seem to remember them accompanying a Corinthian helmet.

Regarding the fact that most Montefortinos are found without cheek guards, I have often wondered about the possibility of them having been removed for ritual purposes prior to deposition, which might equate with the 'killing' of weapons by other ancient peoples.

Crispvs

[Paullus Scipio]

Graham wrote:-

The system of fastening in the reconstruction follows the famous bust of Phyrrus, whose helmet cheek pieces are fastened this way.

...I am fortunate enough to have several good photos of the 'Pyrrhus' bust from several angles, and these make it clear that on the bust, the chin-straps run from a low neckpoint, alongside the neck, along the jawline,(right on the edge of the cheekpiece) to cross over under the point of the chin and fasten on the opposite cheekpiece.

Translating this to a fastening on a Montefortino presents a dilemma, because the 'neckguard' is quite high, and the angle of the strap necessarily downward.The dilemma is to run the strap outside the cheekpiece, as in Graham's study, or inside, as Johnny's cover shows.
Gabriel wrote:-

hereby, the straps would be very easy to cut for a sword, leaving the free helmet

.......I don't believe this is a strong argument against Graham's interpretation, since if a slash to the cheekpiece was strong enough to cut through the strap, a broken strap would be the least of the soldier's worries, as would a 'dented' cheekpiece.....
Personally, having tried various methods, I find that having the straps run inside is the most secure fastening, but I feel sure that this, like many other aspects, will have been a matter of individual taste.

[Tarbicus]

I strap my montefortino by a single strap. It passes from the right cheek piece; under the chin and on top of the left cheek piece to go back and hug the left neck; back to and through the rear right ring, and across and through the left ring; across and forwards to hug the right neck and go over the right cheek piece; and (finally!) under the chin to the left cheek piece stud. It keeps the helmet incredibly stable and secure.

[MeinPanzer]

Is there any evidence other than the Pyrrhus bust for securing the cheek pieces of the Montefortino helmet that way? Why not just have a tie at the bottom of each piece and tie the two together?

[Tarbicus]

Is there any evidence other than the Pyrrhus bust for securing the cheek pieces of the Montefortino helmet that way? Why not just have a tie at the bottom of each piece and tie the two together?

One knock and your helmet would be gone, and then there is the Pyrrhus bust showing an example of studded cheek piece fastenings.

[marcii ulpi messala]

Estimated gentleman graham, Pirro's helmet has the check piece curved, it is not valid for his comparison with the system of fixation of the straps for a helmet of flats check piece.
We can see, as the example here exposed of the cheek piece of both exterior buttons of subordination of the straps of a coolus, he prevents the strap from happening on the outside from the cheek piece, and as the Roman helmets of later years, they avoid the same system spending the correa always for the interior, they are teststhat can lead us to thinking that the system in the Montefortino, I use the same system.
The system of irons for the subordination of pens in the Montefortino, seems to be too strong and solid for pens, in examples of apulo-Corinthian helmets found in Italy and Montefortinos found in Spain for the subordination of pens, they are some simply and light pipes of copper, the system of subordination in iron seems to be more useful for heavier adornments.
In Spain in no case of the helmets Montefortino find "in situ" in his context, they appear with the cheek piece, nevertheless some examples are found by remains of straps of leather and buckles in "D" that justify the fixation of these helmets without the cheek piece.


Estimado señor graham, El yelmo de Pirro tiene la check piece curvas, no es válido para su comparación con el sistema de fijación de las correas para un yelmo de check piece planas.
Podemos ver, como el ejemplo aquí expuesto de la cheek piece de los dos botones exteriores de sujeción de las correas de un coolus, evita que la correa pase por el exterior de la cheek piece, y como los yelmos romanos de años posteriores, evitan este mismo sistema pasando las correa siempre por el interior, son pruebas que pueden llevarnos a pensar que el sistema en el Montefortino, uso el mismo sistema.
El sistema de hierros para la sujeción de plumas en el Montefortino, parece demasiado fuerte y sólido para unas ligeras plumas, en ejemplos de yelmos apulo-corintios hallados en Italia y Montefortinos hallados en España para la sujeción de plumas, son unos simple y ligeros tubos de cobre, el sistema de sujeción en hierro parece más útil para adornos más pesados.
En España en ningún caso de los yelmos Montefortino hallazgo “in situâ€

[Tarbicus]

Estimated gentleman graham, Pirro's helmet has the check piece curved, it is not valid for his comparison with the system of fixation of the straps for a helmet of flats check piece.

Pass the strap above the stud, and then under the chin to the opposite cheek piece for fastening. It's easy.

if you look closely at Graham's illustration that's what he's shown, and it works for my montefortino also.

[MeinPanzer]

Is there any evidence other than the Pyrrhus bust for securing the cheek pieces of the Montefortino helmet that way? Why not just have a tie at the bottom of each piece and tie the two together?

One knock and your helmet would be gone, and then there is the Pyrrhus bust showing an example of studded cheek piece fastenings.

However, there are the helmeted heads from Old Nisa which show this simple method of fastening, so it was obviously not as ineffective as you seem to think and at least equally as likely.

When you take this into consideration along with the facts that A) Pyrrhus' helmet is unique, and so probably not a normal example of an Epirote helmet, let alone a Roman one and B) Of the two versions of the bust, one doesn't even have cheek pieces, suggesting that they (and their attachment method) were probably an "invention" of a later Roman sculptor, I wouldn't use them as a good example for reconstructing anything other than Pyrrhus himself.

[Tarbicus]

However, there are the helmeted heads from Old Nisa which show this simple method of fastening, so it was obviously not as ineffective as you seem to think and at least equally as likely.

If you're talking about this:



I fail to see the relevance to a discussion about helmet cheek pieces with outer studs for fastening the cheek pieces. This is clearly internal. I also can't tell if there is a return to the back of the helmet as seen on later coolus' and wiesenaus.

Another view:



Again, we have no idea if this helmet had rings at the back.

[MeinPanzer]

If you're talking about this:



I fail to see the relevance to a discussion about helmet cheek pieces with outer studs for fastening the cheek pieces. This is clearly internal. I also can't tell if there is a return to the back of the helmet as seen on later coolus' and wiesenaus.

Another view:



Again, we have no idea if this helmet had rings at the back.

There isn't a return and it doesn't have rings at the back.

However, why couldn't a helmet with external studs fasten in this manner?

[Tarbicus]

There isn't a return and it doesn't have rings at the back.

However, why couldn't a helmet with external studs fasten in this manner?

How do you know it doesn't have rings at the back? It's a sculpture, not a real helmet.

How many found montefortinos from a Roman context don't have rings at the back?