Leather cheek-guards on Roman helmets?

[Paullus Scipio]

Or is the helmet sitting on a separate belt or strap of some sort? Grasping at straws, but it would help to see the other side. Still wouldn't be surprised if the whole statue base is Victorian...

I think Matthew likely has put his finger on the matter here. Many ancient statues, particularly those found from the renaissance to the twentieth century, have been heavily "restored", sometimes very imaginatively. The Louvre Praetorians, for instance, were originally found with no heads ( but their present heads with 'attic' helmets may be based on one in the background, or on similar 'Attic' types on Trajanic sculpture), and many Greek/Hellenistic busts ( such as the famous 'Leonidas' one - which may or may not be intended to be him) have had crests added, on the supposition that they are 'supposed' to have crests.

A great deal of discussion, I think, could be saved if museums would reveal just what parts of their statuary were in fact "restorations" - though this would not be always easy to determine without X-rays or materials investigation, which is expensive.......

In this instance the unique form of the helmet overall with its distinctly Napoleonic look, not just the soft 'cheekpieces, gives rise to strong suspicion that this piece is indeed the result of heavy 'restoration'.

[Paullus Scipio]

The Portonaccio Sarcophagas is very intriging,

If you examine the plates very closely you can see that the legionary helmets appear to be placed on top of what could well be a leather cap with leather chin straps. Several plates appear to show the helmets at a slight angle on the head with the leather cap unmoved.

We know Late Roman infantry wore Phyrigian caps under their helmets, perhaps this is a similar thing at an earlier period?

While not necessarily disagreeing with your suggestion, the Phrygian caps you refer to were worn over rather than under helmets - see for example the Arch of Septimius Severus (c.203 AD), and various sarcophagi (c 150 AD), as well as the column of Marcus Aurelius ( c.193 AD), where, as Russell-Robinson pointed out, it appears to be an Auxiliary Infantry fashion......

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paul,i disagree,phrygian caps were worn under helmets for padding since archaic and classical greece. I had created a thread on this a long time ago: <!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=21698&hilit=phrygian">viewtopic.php?f=19&t=21698&hilit=phrygian<!-- l
Unfortunately not all of the links of photos work,but enough do,so you see that the ear flaps of the phrygian cap were folded up exactly like those on the sculpture under discussion here. Paul Bardunias has actually found a number of vases that show hoplites (not Amazons) wearing phrygian caps.

The phrygian cap was the first thing i thought when i saw the helmet above,but the problem is that the folded part is exactly over the hinges of the cheek guard,and this is not very logical...
Khairete
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

I have looked at the photos - though as you say, the links to the first three are broken. I see two problems in linking what is seen in those to the present subject matter:-
1. I'm not sure why you call what are probably arming caps with ear-covers,"phrygian caps". In each case the actual form of the cap beneath the helmet is invisible.....or do you call them 'phrygian' because they have ear flaps, regardless of the shape of the rest of the cap? One can readily see how some sort of ear-flap would prevent chafing of the ears whenever the tight-fitting Corinthian helmet was pulled down. Even so, there is no continuous connection, AFIK, down to Roman times. Presumably that type of 'ear-flapped' helmet-liner/arming cap disappeared with the Corinthian helmet (whether Phrygian shaped in the crown or not...)

2. The examples I gave in Roman times are unequivocally 'Phrygian'-shaped caps, and are definitely worn over the helmet.....

As you say, not only does the 'soft' cheekguard here not correspond to the photos in your earlier thread, but it would also not be very logical......

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Paul,i can't remember if it was in one of the non working links,but i have certainly seen a bust (presumably roman or hellenistic) where the ear flaps of a phrygian cap were turned up and folded/tied on the top of the head(not behind the head,like the Archer from Aphaia). There is no helmet and it is clearly a phrygian cap. If there was a helmet,the result would have been identical to the cap-under-helmet. And in fact in one of the statues of Athena that you can see,part of the top of the cap is visible because it's a chalkidean helmet with rounded cheek guards,and indeed there is something depicted inside there,like the ear flaps of the phrygian cap tied on the top.
Additionally,in the sculptures we see that the prolonged neck flap of the phrygian cap is folded up to pad the helmet neck guard. This points towards it being a phrygian cap rather than an "arming cap".
Finally,as i said there are vases that show hoplites wearing phrygian caps (without helmet) where the top is visible and it is pointy,not round.

The fact that these are not roman but greek statues shouldn't consist a strong objection either. Corinthian helmets were still represented in roman art long after they disappeared. In fact,some of the statues on the other thread are roman copies of greek statues,so of course they were familiar of this practise of using the phrygian cap to pad helmets.

As for your last point, i think you misunderstood,i wasn't speaking about the whole cheek guard being the earflap of the phrygian cap, i merely pointed out that only the excess that we see like a fold at the base of the cheek guard looks like the ear flaps of the phrygian cap when they are folded under a helmet. But it doesn't make sense only because the cheek guard would prevent the earflap fold inside the helmet in the position that it is depicted.
Khaire
Giannis

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul,i can't remember if it was in one of the non working links,but i have certainly seen a bust (presumably roman or hellenistic) where the ear flaps of a phrygian cap were turned up and folded/tied on the top of the head(not behind the head,like the Archer from Aphaia). There is no helmet and it is clearly a phrygian cap. If there was a helmet,the result would have been identical to the cap-under-helmet. And in fact in one of the statues of Athena that you can see,part of the top of the cap is visible because it's a chalkidean helmet with rounded cheek guards,and indeed there is something depicted inside there,like the ear flaps of the phrygian cap tied on the top.
Yes, I see what you mean, and how that would plausibly fit what we see in those 'flaps' rolled up under (mostly) Corinthians.....but wouldn't it work better if the 'ear-flaps' unrolled as the helmet was drawn down, thus protecting the ears? ( i.e. they were not tied).
A 'double fold' just above the ears, because of them being tied, would not be so protective and the 'double thickness' might jam the (presumably) tight fitting helmet.....
Additionally,in the sculptures we see that the prolonged neck flap of the phrygian cap is folded up to pad the helmet neck guard. This points towards it being a phrygian cap rather than an "arming cap".
Yes, I take your point.....and I am not saying that 'phrygian' or 'Thracian caps' were not worn beneath Greek helmets ( or in fact over them - see Connolly "Greece and Rome at War "p.49 for an example)
Finally,as i said there are vases that show hoplites wearing phrygian caps (without helmet) where the top is visible and it is pointy,not round.
Well that is hardly proof of a connection, because it requires one to assume that the particular cap was not an alternative headwear, like a petasos, for when a helmet was not worn, but I'd agree it certainly points to the possibility of them being worn beneath helmets.....

The fact that these are not roman but greek statues shouldn't consist a strong objection either. Corinthian helmets were still represented in roman art long after they disappeared. In fact,some of the statues on the other thread are roman copies of greek statues,so of course they were familiar of this practise of using the phrygian cap to pad helmets.
Probably, since the Phrygian/Thracian cap existed throughout antiquity....but I can't think of any Roman examples showing such a cap worn under a helmet, though it could doubtless be so worn.

As for your last point, i think you misunderstood,i wasn't speaking about the whole cheek guard being the earflap of the phrygian cap, i merely pointed out that only the excess that we see like a fold at the base of the cheek guard looks like the ear flaps of the phrygian cap when they are folded under a helmet. But it doesn't make sense only because the cheek guard would prevent the earflap fold inside the helmet in the position that it is depicted.
Which might not be such an objection if, as I suggested, the earflap was allowed to 'unroll' as the helmet was pulled down, rather than be tied across the top. The real problem is that the photo that started this discussion is :-
a) unique, I think....does anyone know of a similar example? Or any remotely similar helmet from antiquity? How about a photo of the whole statue, please?
b) As Matt and I, and others, suggested, looks more like a 'restoration' or renaissance 'fake' than the real thing
Khaire
Giannis

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

iagree it is problematic. And supporting the view that t might be a later restoration, i can see something that looks like cement, a whiter thin area where the helmets meets the base...one can't say from the photo for sure though. The helmet also looks a different colour than the base,but so does the statue itself...
Khairete
Giannis

[arminius]

Well, thank you all for your replies!
It seems that most of you share my suspicion concerning the source in question.
So, no smoking gun – no leather cheek pieces on the reconstruction of a late Augustan Montefortino-helmet but metal cheek guards of the early imperial type instead.