(Mis)identify the Helmet

[MeinPanzer]

I didn't know quite where to post this, so my apologies to the mods, but this forum seemed the most fititng. I recently came across an article publishing four helmets from Turkey which I found to be very interesting. The article is in Turkish, which I cannot read, but a very brief English summary is provided which states the author's conclusions about each helmet. To make this interesting, I just thought I'd provide the images for everyone to see and guess what cultural provenance and approximate date was given to each helmet. After a few guesses I will post the actual attributions of the author.

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/i ... elmet1.JPG
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/i ... elmet2.JPG
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/i ... elmet3.JPG
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/i ... elmet4.JPG

[jkaler48]

Guess: # 1 Late Roman #234 Migration Period

[markusaurelius]

Ya I second that guess. The 1st one looks like a Roman Intercisa helmet from the 5th Century, with the tell tale nose guard, and cheek pieces with the holes for the leather lining. #2 & 3 looks like a Gothic helmet, perhaps 5th-7th Century (spangenhelm). 4th could be Persian perhaps?

[jvrjenivs]

I would also second the previous guess, as they are of composite construction.

Anyway, I was in a nice museum lately and found there some helmets from the 4th century AD (at least that told the card next to it). Unfortunatelly I would have identified it as montefertino helmets. Anyway, we told the conservator of the museum and he would dig it out asap, and change the text accordingly.

[Paullus Scipio]

Outside my period but for a clue c.f. the "Banded helmets of the 5 c .." thread...... :wink:

[Matthew Amt]

Ooo, puzzles, yea! I recall a discussion either here or on the Armour Archive a while back, in which a helmet identified as early medieval or Migration era turned out to be a World War II Russian pilot's helmet! I *think* it might have looked an awful lot like numbers 2 and 3. I've seen several others like those all over the place, including a pair in a respectable book on medieval armor, so I'm getting the idea that they are way too common, too well preserved, and too consistent to be medieval...

The first one is fascinating! Without the cheekpiece, I'd probably call it 10th to 11th century, since the nasal looks a lot like that on the Wenceslas helmet, and the 4-panel construction (without bands or ridges, note!) was pretty common around then. But the cheekpiece suggests something earlier (though there are earflaps on the later Lewis chessmen), and it's true that the nasal also resembles the late Roman styles. Maybe 5th century or even 6th? (Ha, how about "3rd to 12th century", that oughta hit it!)

Fourth one, no real idea! The little point on top makes me think "Eastern", maybe Byzantine or medieval. Assuming it's iron, of course! If it's bronze, more likely Classical or Hellenistic.

What's the prize for getting it right?

Matthew

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

All but the last one look like either helmets posted in other threads, or, in the case of the first one, vaugely like a
like a poor quality late Roman helmet....
The last one I don't want to hazard a guess!

[MeinPanzer]

Well, I'm afraid that, according to the author of the article, you are all wrong:

Type 1 (Helmet 1) is a local variation of Chalcidicean (sic) type (end of the 4th century BC?).
Type 2: Two helmets fall into this category (Helmets 2 and 3). They bear the typical features of the Italic type helmets (1st century BC).
Type 3 (Helmet 4) is a Konos type helmet that has Celtic influences (2nd and 3rd century BC).

Now, I am by no means an expert on Roman or Byzantine arms and armour, but I recognized immediately that the first three helmets were late Roman or early Byzantine, and that the last was Near Eastern, and perhaps Achaemenid. Never have I seen the publisher of examples of arms or armour been so wrong in identifying them. How the author could think that the first helmet, for instance, dates to the 4th c. BC and looks anything at all like a Chalcidean type is beyond me. He cites Dintsis' Hellenistische Helme in the article, but somehow missed the fact that this helmet it is iron and the calotte is made in two pieces; has a separate nasal; and has canine-shaped cheek pieces, and yet not a single example of a Chalcidean helmet has been found ever possessing any of these characteristics.

Just goes to show that a forum like RAT and a flexible database like the Roman helmet one are better examples of scholarship than a lot of published work out there!

[jvrjenivs]

Just goes to show that a forum like RAT and a flexible database like the Roman helmet one are better examples of scholarship than a lot of published work out there!

Indeed. I often get the impression that the strange way a re-enactor looks at stuff has some positive things. Making a good reconstruction needs you to look at the details and understand the piece, so you probably know more about it then some archeologist who has to date such a piece based on some articles with pics on his desk.

[markusaurelius]

The dating clearly did not take into account any archeological information. If so I think the author would have easily identified the helmets, without even opening a reference article. Clearly if he had opened a reference article he would have made a more logical conclusion. Disappointing actually.

[Matthew Amt]

Ha, is the author of the article still in elementary school? I know a number of 5th-graders who could come up with better identifications! Wacky.

I still don't trust 2 and 3 (even if they AREN'T 1st century BC Italic!). Turns out the WWII helmet I was thinking of looks a lot different, and it's German, not Russian:

http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/helmet/helmet.html

But I have a feeling 2 and 3 have a similar story. I'll have to dig out the other ones I've seen and put them all together for comparison.

Chalcidean, eh? Learn something new every day...

Matthew

[jho]

Ruben,

Could you kindly post the bibliographical details of the article? Although the conclusion appear surprising, it may include helpful factual information.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, I'm afraid that, according to the author of the article, you are all wrong:

Type 1 (Helmet 1) is a local variation of Chalcidicean (sic) type (end of the 4th century BC?).
Type 2: Two helmets fall into this category (Helmets 2 and 3). They bear the typical features of the Italic type helmets (1st century BC).
Type 3 (Helmet 4) is a Konos type helmet that has Celtic influences (2nd and 3rd century BC).

Now, I am by no means an expert on Roman or Byzantine arms and armour, but I recognized immediately that the first three helmets were late Roman or early Byzantine, and that the last was Near Eastern, and perhaps Achaemenid. Never have I seen the publisher of examples of arms or armour been so wrong in identifying them. How the author could think that the first helmet, for instance, dates to the 4th c. BC and looks anything at all like a Chalcidean type is beyond me. He cites Dintsis' Hellenistische Helme in the article, but somehow missed the fact that this helmet it is iron and the calotte is made in two pieces; has a separate nasal; and has canine-shaped cheek pieces, and yet not a single example of a Chalcidean helmet has been found ever possessing any of these characteristics.

Just goes to show that a forum like RAT and a flexible database like the Roman helmet one are better examples of scholarship than a lot of published work out there!

Hey, how am I wrong..... :o

[MeinPanzer]

Ruben,

Could you kindly post the bibliographical details of the article? Although the conclusion appear surprising, it may include helpful factual information.

Sure: Turgut H. Zeyrek, “Halûk Perk Müzesi’nden bir Grup Mi?fer (A Group of Helmets from Halûk Perk Museum),” in Tuliya 1 (2005), 183-192.