Cavalry Helmet Help

[Doc]

I will be giving a presentation on Roman helmets and will be discussing both infantry and legionary helmets from the 1st C AD. The cavalry helmets I want to point to are specifically the Vize and the Xanten (I have good photos of these for a presentation).

Now, I know that the Xanten helmet was an iron bowl with silver sheet decoration applied. However, there are other cavalry helmets like the Vize that are made of brass that have the decoration directly beaten out of the bowl. There is evidence to suggest that there is some sort of silver film or layer left over on the Vize AND I also know that other cavalry helmets of a similar type have silvery material applied. The questions are the following:

Did these brass helmets with the decoration directly beaten out have silver sheet applied with the same decoration on the bowl OR were these types of helmets just tinned?

Did the masks of these brass bowls have silver sheet applied and just the bowls were tinned?

Are the yellow parts of the decoration just the brass left its natural color OR were the brass parts gilt.

To me it would appear that the brass helmets just were tinned and certain parts gilt. It would seem insane to make a helmet with all that decoration and then make a second helmet in silver EXACTLY like the first and fit them together with solder or glue.

Any help would be appreciated especially about the Vize....is that silver film tinning or silver applied sheet?

Thanks in adavance

[Flavivs Aetivs]

What do you mean by "decoration beaten out of the bow?"

[jho]

Salve!

The Romans apparently had other ideas about what was „insane“ as some iron helmet masks were in fact outfitted with a second outer skin of silver sheet made in the manner you describe (Nijmegen, Homs).

After a quick scan of my notes I have not found any copper alloy mask helmets described as plated in this manner, instead these are often stated be „silvered“ (e.g. Pfrondorf) or „tinned“ (river Waal, Aintab, Eining, Weissenburg, Antikenmuseum Berlin, Germany, Inv. No. L 86), i.e. covered with a white metal film. The Vize helmet is stated to be silvered by Garbsch, but "silver" is often used as a synonym for white metal and must not necessarily correctly describe the type of metal used for the film.

I presume that the difference in treatment between iron and copper alloy helmets (if it is actual and not only apparent) may be due to the different properties of the respective core materials but I am not an expert on that.

Where a gold/silver effect was used on helmets, this mostly appears to have been achieved by leaving parts of the copper alloy untinned/unsilvered (as is the case with the helmets cited above), but a cheek piece from Mainz is described as made of copper alloy sheet, then COMPLETELY silvered and then PARTIALLY gilt.

However, it is not always possible to determine whether parts of a helmet have been left unsilvered/untinned on purpose or whether the tinning has rubbed off. I remember a reference to the fact that the gold/silver effect may appear more pleasing to modern eyes than it has appeared to Roman eyes because there are examples of military equipment where this effect was spoilt by complete silvering/tinning (it may have been in Junkelmann's work, but I do not have that here).

[Doc]

Hello everyone.....

Thanks for the reply Jens.

I agree with you that silvered does often mean white metal and not necessarily silver. I know someone who did some testing on actual artifacts and found that the silvered object was covered in tin and NOT silver. I am of the opinion that when silver was intended, the Romans actually used real silver sheet to skin an item. However, if they wanted a silvery appearance, they just tinned the object.

I have also found while looking at several objects....not only helmets......that really complexly decorated objects arise from the following situations: Since iron is more difficult to work relative to silver and copper alloys, simple iron helmets were made and then skinned with highly decorated copper alloy or silver sheet like the Xanten and Hallaton (to my knowledge, there are no cavalry helmets with extreme decoration beaten directly out from the iron helmet bowl and then tinned). The other option is to make a helmet in complete copper alloy and being easier to work than iron, the entire decoration was made directly on the helmet. Then to make it look shiny, just applied tin........as appears to be the case with the Crosby Garret, Vize, etc.

So in my personal summation, basically the choices are two......if the bowl is iron....it is skinned. If the bowl is copper alloy....it is tinned. I do not think that they would have beaten out the decoration on the helmet AND THEN make another identical set of decoration with a different metal that fit completely over the other. I am not saying they could not.....just that it makes no sense. One could just make a complex decoration and skin a simple helmet bowl. No point in decorating a helmet bowl like the Vize and then skinning it with the same decoration.

Jens.....so in your opinion.....the Vize like the Crosby Garret and the like, were made from copper alloy and tinned to give it the shiny appearance and what was left in gold color comes from either gilding or leaving parts untinned....correct?

Thanks

[Ammianus Marcellinus]

For further informations, a very good study in french however ...

http://www.academia.edu/5785339/Les_casq...taken=true

[Doc]

Thank you Julien for the article.

I can read French decent enough to understand.

Thanks

[jho]

Paolo,

The article appears to answer most of your questions.

I would just like to reiterate that the Romans were quite capable of creating deeply embossed helmets directly from iron, cf. the masks from Nijmegen-Kops Plateau and the helmets from Weiler and Northwich, and still went to the pains of covering (at least some of) those with a "second" helmet of silver sheet.

[jvrjenivs]

Although a lot has already been set, I would like to add my two cents.

The kops plateau masked helmets (with the horse hair decorations on the bowl) were made of iron with sheet silver copys glued over the mask. E.G. two masks were produced by the artisan, one of 32-layered steel, the other of silver sheet and then glued together.

The Nijmegen (waal-river) helmet has really deep repousse decorations into the browband. This silvered helmet had gilded decorations on the browband and the mask, giving it a two-tone appearance.

The amerongen brow-band was made of brass and partly covered in silver/tinn and gold to give more details to the decorations.

The Vechten mask was left with a 'copper-alloy' finish, probably a bit darked as to modern brass.

[PhilusEstilius]

The raised relief on the Crosby Garret stood out as part of the face mask and not the helmet and is thought to have been left as brass where the face itself was tinned. Then the Vetchen face mask is an iron mask that is covered in bronze.

Where it is mentioned that the Xanten was covered in silver sheet there are areas of it that would appear to have been silvered.

[PhilusEstilius]

I have just been reading an article about a mask found at the Kops Plateau and comparisons also made to the Vetchen and the Kalkriese types where it has been mentioned that these masks never had ears, however I have to disagree with this view for side views of these masks would suggest that they may well indeed have had such ears to them that have in fact been removed for some particular reason.

It is also said that the Vetchen has been dated to the second half of the 1st century where in fact I think it may well date from the first half of the 1st century with a possible connection with the Kalkriese in its style.

[Doc]

I agree Jens that the Romans had the ability to beat decorations directly out of an iron bowl. However, of all the examples mentioned thus far........unless I am wrong.......only the face masks were iron and then skinned. I do not think there is a helmet where the iron bowl is made like the Xanten in decoration and then skinned with silver.

My point was to suggest that iron helmets.....bowl or mask.......were nearly all covered in some sort of sheet whereas the brass helmets were either left yellow or partly/completely tinned to give the silver appearance. I am not aware of brass cavalry helmets that were skinned. Again.....I am concentrating on the helmet bowl where all the wild repousee work is done NOT the masks. Iron masks covered with silver sheet is not evidence that the entire bowl with hair decoration was also skinned.

[jho]

Paolo,

I understand that your point is specifically that the helmet bowl with embossed locks, if made in iron, was not covered with silver sheet. I must agree that I am not aware of a single helmet bowl made of iron with embossed locks which would have been covered with silver sheet. Your assumption that this is due to technical reasons may be supported by the iron helmet from Plovdiv (Phillipopolis). It has the mask covered in silver sheet but not the bowl.

[Doc]

Hello Jens,

My point exactly. Either way, in the end, they would have been stunning.

I wonder if on the Vize the mask was covered in silver sheet and the bowl was just tinned. I do not think so since there is not ONE trace of silver material on that mask. Besides, the mask is connected to the cheek pieces and the ears so the entire things would have to be covered in silver sheet.

I think with the Vize its most likely the case that the entire helmet was tinned and then certain parts left yellow or possibly gilt.......I think its the former.

Cheers