Since the subject of weight is being brought up here I'll take a little time here to go into some lengthy and painful discussion as to why the helmet weights of artifact helmets are irrelevant.
An Archeologist weighed and cataloged every Egyptian Mummy he could find. Through careful analysis he determined that ancient Egyptians weighed on average 52 pounds.
This is the line of reasoning you are taking by reading those books. Not one of them explains to you the specific gravity weight of bronze nor the effects of time on these alloys. As nice as these helmets look, they are mostly held together by epoxy and gauze. There is very little left of the original helmet other than a fine metal skin and patina holding it all together. A 2 or 3 pound helmet in a museum is a 'helmet mummy'. There is the exterior form and little else remaining.
Here is the meat and potatoes! The specific gravity of Bronze ie how dense it is; is pretty high. Much higher than iron, steel, aluminum etc. in order to work backwards to find the weight of a 'live' Corinthian in the 5th century you need to make one exactly like they did.
Done
This helmet is just a touch chunky as I needed it completed in order to get started on actually being able to offer them for sale. Obviously bigger heads necessitate a bigger helmet ergo a little more weight. I would guess fully finished this helmet in my size would be 7 pounds. Very manageable unless you are completely devoid of neck muscles.
As a point of weights to sizes, the specific gravity tells us the average helmet must, MUST weigh between 7.4-8.920 pounds. This is physics there is nothing we can change about this. Bronze weighs what bronze weighs. It's mass determines weight. Artifact helmets over the centuries have had a majority of their mass or density lost to precipitation of the alloying elements into the surrounding soils. While patina on bronze is very different than rust on iron the loss can be just as devastating. Rust eats iron but patina leaves the surface intact while the underlying elements of the alloy walk away leaving something like a sponge behind. It's shaped like a helmet but nothing inside remains. If the average loss over time is 3/4 of the copper converts to sulfates and the tin migrates out of the alloy (which it does) you'd have a 7-8 pound helmet reduced to about the weights measured in your book. Obviously these are generalizations. Every single helmet is particular due to varying alloy content and even more importantly, the topography and soil type it was buried in.
Today's replica helmets are not made to be exact copies of the real helmets. They are made for 'dressing up'. Weight and convenience takes precedence over the physical characteristics being equal to a helmet that was actually intended to protect you. If you want a nice lightweight helmet to walk around in than anything helmet made from .025 or .036 bronze will give you that 3 pound weight, but those thickness are very easily moved with little force. Artifact helmets even being 'hollowed' out by time display thicker construction than their current weight would suggest. This indicates clearly the real ones when 'live' could not physically have weighed so little.
A real helmet, designed and made to be impervious is going to weight 7-8 pounds. One made to play in and be easy on the head is thin enough that anyone wielding a Badminton racket would be able to kill you. It's important not lose sight of what these helmets were really made for.
In their world, in their battles your head was the most exposed part of you above that shield. A thin lightweight helmet was what these started out as. As their combat style and the hardness of their weaponry evolved the helmets ceased to protect them. The helmet I have made represents the zenith of its evolution. It's most beautiful form, it's most complex shape and skill to make it this way. It's highest weight but also the penultimate protection. No helmet in this class shows war damage that comes close to compromising the wearer.
I'm not making any case for all helmets weighed 7-8 pounds. Just that ALL helmets weighed more when new than they do now. My helmet weighs 7 pounds. It is the very pinnacle of the Corinthian helmet type they ever made. It's the sturdiest and strongest. A baseball bat wouldn't dent it. Three days of Persians wouldn't dent it. If I buried it today......2,000 years later it would weigh 2 pounds.
Yes they were cast, especially in the later iterations. Then hammering to draw out the shape. The earliest helmets found gave rise to the 'hammered out of a thin sheet' as this was the way they initially made them. But the shapes were not complex and allowed that technique to be used. By the later stages hammering would have been difficult and more left as a finishing treatment to the helmet. The alloy had one commonality from early to late helmets and was distinctly found only in helmets. By the late types the bronze is so specific that it is nearly immune to any hammering! Even today this class of bronze alloy if made, is impossible to flatten into sheet. It must be cast.
Yes, thanks indeed! Certainly clarifies points I have wondered about.
I cannot say I am surprised tha tthere was a reduction in thickness/mass of these over time...
I work in a metal environment, and rust/corrosion/oxidation is a constant enemy!
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Since the subject of weight is being brought up here I'll take a little time here to go into some lengthy and painful discussion as to why the helmet weights of artifact helmets are irrelevant.
An Archeologist weighed and cataloged every Egyptian Mummy he could find. Through careful analysis he determined that ancient Egyptians weighed on average 52 pounds.
This is a weird comparison. A human body consists mostly of water, which bronze, as far as I know, does not.
Quote:This is the line of reasoning you are taking by reading those books. Not one of them explains to you the specific gravity weight of bronze nor the effects of time on these alloys.
As nice as these helmets look, they are mostly held together by epoxy and gauze. There is very little left of the original helmet other than a fine metal skin and patina holding it all together. A 2 or 3 pound helmet in a museum is a 'helmet mummy'. There is the exterior form and little else remaining.
Apperantly you haven´t read them. Au contraire, "Die Helme des Hephaistos" shows pages 24-45 an in depth archaeometric report. X-Ray, laserablation (with element-trace analysis, and with inductive linked plasma stimulation) and ICP-MS/ICP-OES etc. p.p., atomic absorption spectral analysis, ESEM, REM and many more.
The average metallurgy of these helmets shows an alloy that is Cu 91.09%, Sn8,23%, Pb 0,18%, Zn 0,01%, Fe 0,22%, Ni0,06%, Ag 0,04%, Sb 0,03%, As 0,14%, Co0,05%
The reports also show that apart from broken off parts and normal wear and tear the helmets did not loose weight., i.e. the specific weight of the examples investigated is identical to new identical alloys. If it weren´t so, an analysis of the alloy as such would be impossible as well. Had i.e. the copper "left" the helmet to a certain amount, as you describe, then a metallurgical analysis would offer different results, naturally. What you say indeed happens sometimes, in extreme environment, such as the sea, when other metals are nearby, or in very wet/sour/alcalic/salty soil. The helmets from olympia investigated for "Die Helme des Hephaistos" as it seems were not subject to a corrosion you are describing (below). Yet their weights are around 1 kg. This is due to their form and variation in material thickness.
The "spongy" character of the metal which you mention is indeed there, but mostly due to the fact that the bronze takes up iron from its environment. This makes the bronze brittle. *
Quote:Here is the meat and potatoes! The specific gravity of Bronze ie how dense it is; is pretty high. Much higher than iron, steel, aluminum etc. in order to work backwards to find the weight of a 'live' Corinthian in the 5th century you need to make one exactly like they did.
Done
This helmet is just a touch chunky as I needed it completed in order to get started on actually being able to offer them for sale. Obviously bigger heads necessitate a bigger helmet ergo a little more weight. I would guess fully finished this helmet in my size would be 7 pounds. Very manageable unless you are completely devoid of neck muscles.
As a point of weights to sizes, the specific gravity tells us the average helmet must, MUST weigh between 7.4-8.920 pounds.
I don´t understand. How does it do that in your opinion? As you say the volume of the bronze in combination with the specific weight tells us what such a helmet weighs. How do you derive at the weight you describe despite saying it "MUST"? You suggest that a series of natural scientists and experts on metallurgy are telling us utter nonsense in their publications.
What is your argument to make their work invalid?
Quote:This is physics there is nothing we can change about this. Bronze weighs what bronze weighs. It's mass determines weight. Artifact helmets over the centuries have had a majority of their mass or density lost to precipitation of the alloying elements into the surrounding soils. While patina on bronze is very different than rust on iron the loss can be just as devastating. Rust eats iron but patina leaves the surface intact while the underlying elements of the alloy walk away leaving something like a sponge behind. It's shaped like a helmet but nothing inside remains. If the average loss over time is 3/4 of the copper converts to sulfates and the tin migrates out of the alloy (which it does) you'd have a 7-8 pound helmet reduced to about the weights measured in your book. Obviously these are generalizations. Every single helmet is particular due to varying alloy content and even more importantly, the topography and soil type it was buried in.
But, what for Olympia, where this doesn´t seem to have happened? Same e.g. for the Mahdia Bronzes. A patina can equally preserve the bronze inside and stop further corrosion process, as F. Willer shows in detail in the publications of the Mahdia shipwreck.
Quote:]Today's replica helmets are not made to be exact copies of the real helmets. They are made for 'dressing up'.
Absolutely, correct.
Quote:Weight and convenience takes precedence over the physical characteristics being equal to a helmet that was actually intended to protect you. If you want a nice lightweight helmet to walk around in than anything helmet made from .025 or .036 bronze will give you that 3 pound weight, but those thickness are very easily moved with little force. Artifact helmets even being 'hollowed' out by time display thicker construction than their current weight would suggest. This indicates clearly the real ones when 'live' could not physically have weighed so little.
A real helmet, designed and made to be impervious is going to weight 7-8 pounds. One made to play in and be easy on the head is thin enough that anyone wielding a Badminton racket would be able to kill you. It's important not lose sight of what these helmets were really made for.
In their world, in their battles your head was the most exposed part of you above that shield. A thin lightweight helmet was what these started out as. As their combat style and the hardness of their weaponry evolved the helmets ceased to protect them. The helmet I have made represents the zenith of its evolution. It's most beautiful form, it's most complex shape and skill to make it this way. It's highest weight but also the penultimate protection. No helmet in this class shows war damage that comes close to compromising the wearer.
So your argument is, basically: The helmets are not stable enough in my opinion, so they must have been heavier?
Quote:I'm not making any case for all helmets weighed 7-8 pounds. Just that ALL helmets weighed more when new than they do now. My helmet weighs 7 pounds. It is the very pinnacle of the Corinthian helmet type they ever made. It's the sturdiest and strongest. A baseball bat wouldn't dent it. Three days of Persians wouldn't dent it. If I buried it today......2,000 years later it would weigh 2 pounds.
As the metallurgical and metallographical analysis I have quoted above show, this loss of weight does not seem to have taken place in the amount you are describing. Which seems to lead to the point that your helmets are way too heavy in comparison to the originals. This may be due to the extreme thinness of the originals on their backside, as all the X-rays show. The wax (?) models on your page seem to be too thick in that regard
If you did cast of this model, also the production process would not be like that of the originals, again shown in "Die Helme des Hephaistos" in detail. It would explain the weight, though. Can you enlighten? Did you cast of this model?
*edit: of course there are heavily corroded helmets from Olympia as well. There is a group of helmets, however, which was found in very wet conditions in wells, and which were hardly corroded, and quite in an almost-as-new state.
P.H. Blyth, A.G. Atkins, Stabbing of metal sheets by a triangular knife. An archaeological investigation, in: International Journal of Impact Engineering 27 (2002) 459-473. http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/stab...hZDGtJzN2A
P.H. Blyth, 1988. "Cold-working in Ancient Greek Helmets, in: Aspects of Ancient Mining and Metallurgy: Ada of a British School at Athens Centenary Conference at Bangor, (1988) 151-154.
Blyth, P.H., Metallurgy of Two Fragmentary Archaic Greek Helmets, J. Hist. Met. Soc. 27 (1993) 25–36.
P.H. Blyth, Metallurgy of bronze armour. Use of work hardening in the Late Corinthian helmet as evidence of mastery of material, in: Praktika tou XII Diethnous Synedriou Klasikis Archaiologias (Athens 1988) 293-296.
About the development of Corinthian helmets towards thinness:
P. H. Blyth, The Effectiveness of Greek Armour against arrows in the Persian War. (490-479 BC), Diss. University of Reading 1977.
Measurements of original helmets and helmet parts from Olympia have shown following Brinell-hardness:
Early Corinthians:
70-100 HB
Middle and Late Corinthians:
140-200 HB
So I find it extremely difficult to see the " sponginess" you talk about.
These for bronze extremely hard original helmets, on which one can discern all kinds of different tool marks which enable experts to investigate the whole production process are very light and thin in comparison to your model. Is it possible that you did cast the whole helmet in one piece and then worked it over? If so, your production technique would be very different from the original production technique, which apart from casting a raw rudimentary form mostly involved a large amount of driving with different types of hammers and anvils, as can also be seen on vase paintings.
As for the specific weight of bronze: Of course you are correct about that, it is around 8,8, whereas e.g. steel is around 7,9. Lead is around 13, for comparison. So the difference between bronze and steel e.g. is not that much...
The volume of a helmet would then tell us what it would have weighed. With the thinness of the material of the originals, however, I think it is impossible to reach weights as you suggest.
Well, then, I think we have come to an impasse here, which would suggest (at least in my mind) there are two options for a reasonable solution:
1) Make one yourself
2) Don't buy the Dioskouri
It's much easier to tell someone they are wrong than it is to actually do it the way you feel is correct and thereby prove it with tangible evidence of your own professing. One point I can address here (and I am NOT a blacksmith), but I can see plainly how it would be impossible to produce a 5th century B.C. Corinthian by using a hammer only. I know the pottery image you refer to, depicting the armorer using a hammer on a helmet, but this is a chasing hammer (used for decorations and chasing) and not a forming hammer. Earlier archaic helmets were (in most cases) formed from sheets of bronze, as their non anatomical shapes would suggest. When the helmet shape was refined later, it created the problem discussed above, as it was impossible to get any decent leverage or inertia to shape the bronze from within the helmet. The Greeks didn't use magic to make these helmets, neither did aliens show them how. Bronze will not pour into an area smaller than physics will allow, so they must have had a "cheat" or trick they applied to get the bronze that thin. I know bronze has many different properties that cause many undesirable results unless you are very careful. Since helmets seem to be so difficult to produce, economics dictates there had to be a way to produce an acceptable product relatively quickly, or else the armorer (and his family) had to live on the commission of one or two helmets a year. Now, if he was charging a $30,000 equivalent per helmet, then I don't have a problem.
I guess my point is - please don't bash someone's genuine, honest efforts to produce something unique, that hasn't been produced in 2,400 years (for obvious reasons) unless you can make one to your professed standards. If you can do that, then we will be more inclined to give more credence to your criticisms. Dioskouri has "put their money (literally) where their mouth is" to produce this helmet. I for one, find their efforts highly laudable. I have held the helmet and seen the thicknesses and I don't have a problem with the "Dendaskouri" at all. It looks real because it IS real - it is a product of literally decades of research and passionate efforts.
Quote:It's much easier to tell someone they are wrong than it is to actually do it the way you feel is correct and thereby prove it with tangible evidence of your own professing.
This is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the statement that these helmets are made exactly like the originals. It seems to me that this is in regard of the find publications and their analysis not correct. This is, after all, a forum for reconstruction and Re-enactment, so a forum that has the purpose to discuss these things.
Quote:Bronze will not pour into an area smaller than physics will allow, so they must have had a "cheat" or trick they applied to get the bronze that thin. I know bronze has many different properties that cause many undesirable results unless you are very careful.
Errrm... that is what I have been writing about above. There is no "cheat", I described above that metallography suggests how they were made. And this seems quite different from what is presented here by Dioskouri. I also quoted some of the relevant english literature about this. It is that simple: If the helmets are cast as they are in one piece, as the pictures on the Dioskouri site suggest, and if they have such a weight, then the statement that they were made in an authentic way is not correct. However, it would be quite interesting to have such a production way investigated and explained. In that way I also don´t see why these helmets should be more authentic than the Manning helmets used here for comparison. In fact, the Manning is overall closer to the originals, apart from the fact that the way of getting there is also not "authentic".
Quote:I guess my point is - please don't bash someone's genuine, honest efforts to produce something unique, that hasn't been produced in 2,400 years (for obvious reasons) unless you can make one to your professed standards.
It is not my intention to bash the efforts, I am simply trying to find out if the statements made are correct, since what is presented contradicts these statements. And: Does this also count for Manning´s efforts? If so, why would the Manning product be bashed here?
Quote:If you can do that, then we will be more inclined to give more credence to your criticisms.
So my ability to produce such a helmet decides the question how such a helmet was made in antiquity? I think not, that´s a non sequitur. The question can only be answered by investigation of the originals. Such an investigation was already made for several original helmets. The results of such an investigation should set the standards in regard of reconstruction. Also I don´t see why this discussion equally couldn´t be of use for Dioskouri, as this way the Dioskouri helmet could be improved and made indeed authentic.
Dioskouri's statement regarding the way these helmets are made (if you had bothered to check the original claims) states that these helmets are made like the originals (i.e. one piece, not welded). Those last words are the qualifiers - Dioskouri doesn't claim to hold the secrets of ancient helmet making - NO ONE knows these methods, so instead we get (up 'til Dioskouri's efforts) air-hammered pieces which are then welded together. Somehow, the "logic" escapes me as to how this method is more accurate than one that produces a solid, one piece, seamless helmet (like the ancient ones are). The Greeks didn't have pneumatic hmmers, nor did they ever weld their helmets together from pieces. If "accuracy" is predicated solely on weight and thickness in your opinion, then this leaves us with very few options - none of which produces a truly authentic effort. I never bashed Manning. If you will take the time to re-read my thread, you will see I never used the word "Manning" once. Knee-jerk sensitivities like this (putting words in my mouth) are invalid argument platforms. One wonders if you might have connections with the afore mentioned armorer, prompting such an unprovoked, vigorous defense(?). In any case, I cannot reconcile in my mind how any helmet that is stamped and welded is held as superior (in any way) in integrity to a solid, one piece (like the originals are), or deemed more authentic.
You didn´t bash Manning and I never said you did. Dioskouri did, as I said:
Quote:in order to work backwards to find the weight of a 'live' Corinthian in the 5th century you need to make one exactly like they did.
Done
Quote:As I am not just a maker with a bias, but as an enthusiastic living Historian, I am disappointed to see such a huge disparity
between the helmets. The artifact based helmet didn't seem too different to me, just more graceful and detailed. Once it was next to
another helmet its proportions and shape really got set off on how 'different' the real ones are compared to popular makes of helmets
today. The differences are more than a little noticeable and I honestly didn't think the contrast would be as great as it is.
Quote: I really have not in 30 years ever seen a helmet like this. I never could find one that wasn't a bad
prop or a joke......so I decided I would make one and it would be accurate, perfect and beautiful. Its exactly like owning an
original one except not as fragile. I tried to make it as exact as I could and I hope you all feel that way a well. Its the only
helmet today made like theirs were.
As for what you said:
Quote:Somehow, the "logic" escapes me as to how this method is more accurate than one that produces a solid, one piece, seamless helmet (like the ancient ones are).
I did not mean that. I meant that it is also "wrong", whereas in the outcome the manning is closer to the original in certain aspects. Sorry for being not clear enough. Basically it depends on the criteria one judges it by.
Quote:One wonders if you might have connections with the afore mentioned armorer, prompting such an unprovoked, vigorous defense(?).
No none at all. In fact I also critizised Manning helmets on this very board for being welded together from several pieces some time ago, when an other board member stated that they were like the originals.
Quote:In any case, I cannot reconcile in my mind how any helmet that is stamped and welded is held as superior (in any way) in integrity to a solid, one piece (like the originals are), or deemed more authentic.
I don´t hold it superior. Basically it really depends on the criteria. I think both are not very authentic under certain aspects.
To compare the form of both is a bit weird, since the Manning helmet shown in the pics above is based on a different original than the Dioskouri helmet. Manning also has helmets that are of a similar type as the Dioskouri helmet, so one of those should have been chosen for a comparison, to start with, I think. I also think that the Dioskouri helmet looks really great, as I said above, but I don´t see Dioskouri´s claim of complete authenticity in regard of production method and outcome to be correct, and that is so for the reasons I stated above.
As I read and interpret statements made by Dioskouri regarding Manning's helmets, and being as I am in a position to discuss at length these points with Dioskouri at will, I can truthfully say there is no bashing intended. As I gather, there are only clinical comparisons being made between the final product results. Manning has been the best up to this point to offer a reasonable facsimile helmet (albeit, IMO, a bit overpriced). Obviously it has never been Manning's objective to produce an authentic, battle-worthy Corinthian helmet. No Greek in his right mind would enter battle, wearing a helmet so thin, it only weighed 3 pounds (Manning's weighs less than 1 kilo - not bashing - stating facts). This is where Dioskouri differs from all other contemporary suppliers. Dioskouri is in the practice of recreating real (battle-worthy) weapons and armor. I have observed up close the techniques and products of this (almost obsessive) armorer and have found their results, in all aspects (from spolas construction to spear points and swords), to be as accurate and faithful to the originals as is humanly possible. Certainly we don't know all the methods and techniques that were incorporated by the Greeks, but all things being equal, I've not found any appreciable deviations from what we know about the Greeks and Dioskouri's methods of (re)construction. The results are what physics dictate, so IMHO this is a pretty good litmus test to give us an idea of what the pieces looked like new, what they weighed and how they reacted to outside stimuli. This particular helmet was made, using logic, a ton of research, a lot of money as well as proper alloys. Not all Greek helmets were made the same way - not all (because of environment) have decayed to the same degree either. It is safe to assume, however, there possibly was an ancient armorer who used techniques very similar to those of Dioskouri. We will never know, but I think it is fair to assume Dioskouri's methods qualify as the closest to date to what appears to be what (at least some of) the ancient armorers employed. There are two choices here: 1) reenact at an "acceptable" level, or 2) approach it from a living historian point of view. The first choice is what the serious reenactor might term as "dress-up" while the second choice will set you apart as a true devotee and student of your passion.
Well, many of the well preserved originals weigh less than 1 kg. As I have quoted above. Here a series of pictures to further show what I am talking about, all based on minute scientific (as in natural sciences) research.
1. a series of helmets from Olympia was found as basically "new". Here is a detail-picture of one of these, so that one can see what I am talking about.
[attachment=5581]IMG_0974.jpg[/attachment]
2. some of these helmets were damaged due to pressure from above, here is an Xray from one of these. These helmets show how extremely thin these helmets were on the backside, while being more massive on the front. The whole helmet construction is a system of specially hardened and softer areas designed to hold against thrusts etc., supported by thicker and thinner areas. So different workshops could apparently be identified, which each had their own ways of making this, back then a sort of production secret (?). The aim in this process (evolution, if you will) was to get ever lighter helmets with ever better protective qualities.
[attachment=5582]IMG_0972.jpg[/attachment]
3. A search for tool marks etc. made it possible to find a production pattern which showed the use of larger and smaller hammers with specific form for different specific areas of the helmets. This is visible here in an X-Ray as well, see arrows.
[attachment=5583]IMG_0975.jpg[/attachment]
4. The investigation of all these details led to this sketch of middle and late Corinthian production scheme
[attachment=5584]IMG_0967.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=5585]IMG_0968.jpg[/attachment]
5. This is in addition supported by iconographic evidence. Especially the second picture seems to show a pre-cast helmet and the necessary hammers for bringing it into form. However, the scientific analysis is enough on its own. Only some small details are not yet 100% sure, yet there is a lack of other possibilities.
[attachment=5586]IMG_0970.jpg[/attachment]
All this led me to come to my arguments above. Can you support your claims about the heavier weight of these helmets in any way other than simply stating "This is so-and-so" and "That has to be so-and-so"?
I still contend: Those who CAN - DO; Those who CAN'T write books. Please graphically prove these methods by producing a 5th century B.C. helmet from them yourself - then will I believe your "experts". If it is as simple as they say, then why haven't the reenactment community armorers employed these techniques?
Well, of course you can have this opinion, but it does not logically connect to what I say or said here. I showed what a scientific analysis of original well-preserved helmets under the caveat of the problems with preservation has shown how the original corinthian helmets were made. I was not ever writing something about a modern book offering guidelines for a reproduction or reconstruction of Corinthian helmets. Only in this regard your statement would make any sense in response to what I wrote.
Quote:Please graphically prove these methods by producing a 5th century B.C. helmet from them yourself - then will I believe your "experts".
Why should I? I am not the one who said he made a Corinthian helmet in an authentic way. If someone claims to have or have done something it is his responsibility to prove to have done so. If I told you to have 5 gold bars every time we meet but would never be able to show them you might get suspicious after a while. This is an elementary rule of human communication. What you try to do now is to move the burden of proof. http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
Also, since you seem to have no other arguments available, you start to discredit the scientists who worked on this for several decades by doing this:
Gentlemen, let's not turn this very exciting thread too heated!
Please correct me if I am wrong: Dioskouri has produced what could be the most authentic copies of corinthian style helmets yet made on this planet. Anyway Christian shows that the corinthian style helmets were generally lighter than the helmets made by Dioskouri, based on the evidence from Olympia (for example). I think Christian doesn't want to take anything away from Dioskouri's effort, just showing how they might still differ from the original helmets. Am I correct?
![[Image: fectio.png]](http://s226.photobucket.com/user/sattuviitana/media/fectio.png.html)
