Leather decoration on helmets?!

[tlclark]

This comes from a friend of mine who is an expert leather worker.

We all know about small holes on helmets and other items, presumably for attaching leather linings.

Now my friend has noticed similar evidence of stitching on the brow plate of the famous Louvre "praetorian" relief. (The one in the background, not the restored heads in the foreground) A lining would be worthless on a brow plate so why the stitching?

My first thought this was repousse decoration but my friend has suggested that perhaps this was molded leather stitched to the outside of the helmet for decorative purposes. She has an eye for these things.

Assuming it was painted anyway, molded leather might be an acceptable form of decoration.

Any thoughts or better pics of the helmet in question?

[Tarbicus]

Here you go:

link from old RAT

And a different one:

[url:2u5reg99]http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?p=37140#37140[/url]

That last one looks like it to me. The laurel looks like it's rivetted on as well, so that could well be metal?

[tlclark]

Here you go:

link from old RAT

And a different one:

[url:2c31imy6]http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?p=37140#37140[/url]

That last one looks like it to me. The laurel looks like it's rivetted on as well, so that could well be metal?

That's it!

Wow. I can tell exactly what she means. It sure doesn't look like rivets to me, but it looks like stitching.

Hmmm.

Three possibilities:

1. The artist goofed and put stitches on a helmet.
2. The artist has represented the object accurately, but the "stitching" is actually metal decoration, a faux effect. (Stuff like this happens all the time in the ancient world i.e. gutae, rope molding, etc. all rendered in stone or metal for decorative purposes.)
3. The object is in fact, molded leather stitched onto metal.

I normally would favor option 2 since I see no reason for an artist to make a "goof" this specific, but is there any reason not to suspect 3 is possible?

Travis

[Graham Sumner]

Oh artists are always making goofs, especially Roman ones and especially when leather is concerned!!

[caiusbeerquitius]

I favour 2.)
I think it is rather likely for thr Praetorians, who were especially "fancy" to show their wealth through their gear. So, if the Legionaries had metal attachments with fine and nice deatil, it might well be the case that the pretorians were trying to look even better. Leather is probably not the right medium to do so, rather silver or even gold.
Just my 2 cents...

[tlclark]

Well isn't THAT convenient.

I wonder if this is something like the age old standard for determining if a sculpture is a Roman copy or Greek original.

It's very scientific.

If they like it, it's Greek. If they don't, it's Roman.

So let's look at this...

If it's visual evidence that makes it look like the object had leather parts...then the artist goofed.

It's airtight! No one can argue!

Ugh. A HUGE part of my dissertation has been dismantling just this sort of thinking.

For example, Doula Mouriki cites the opinion of the Patriarch Photius that the Christian Topography was unpopular. Then she has to explain why such an unpopular text is so fabulously illustrated in the best scriptoriums in Constantinople. So she hypothetically suggests a (and this is a direct quote) "a wealthy but naive patron" had it made.

In other words, "Some dumb rich guy had it made" or in other other words "Don't bother me with facts that don't fit my hypothesis!! I have a dissertation to write!!"

[Graham Sumner]

Travis wrote

If it's visual evidence that makes it look like the object had leather parts...then the artist goofed.

Yep! That just about sums it up. Leather is an acceptable form of armour in every other ancient period but not the Roman. It suddenly becomes useless because it either always rained in Roman times or their enemies had technology missing from other periods that would penetrate any form of leather body defense the Romans might conceivably have used. Therefore Roman leather armour would have had to have been so thick the soldier could not move. Yes it is far more believable that a tunic on it's own provided adequate defense! :wink:

Why should the Roman use leather when they had all that nice shiny expensive metal armour? Perhaps one day that statement might sound as daft as saying 'why should the Romans build forts in earth and sticks when they had stone'.

Graham.

[Tarbicus]

One word: Rawhide. :wink:

[Graham Sumner]

One word: Rawhide.

What's a western TV series got to do with it!

[Matt Lukes]

The laurel looks like it's rivetted on as well, so that could well be metal?

I think those are the laurel berries that are often depicted with laurel wreaths Jim- not rivets. It seems to me that unless there are clear rivets depicted in that relief (I don't see any myself), it's not reasonable to suggest the 'holes' in the helmet edging must be that and not rivets. To be honest, it makes no sense to me to think that these must be holes for stitching- why would the helmets without whatever is supposed to have been stitched on be depicted in use? That's how we'd find artifacts, not how they'd have looked on someone's head. They'd be depicted with the edging and actual stitches which would look like little bars, yes? I do have some trouble seeing them as rivets though- the artist was clearly skilled so it wasn't as if it was just easier to portray the rivets with holes as opposed to relief domes. It seems more likely to me that the edging had pierced as well as raised decoration- that's certainly not unheard of!

One word: Rawhide.

Jim, frater, you've got to seek some help with this rawhide fetish of yours... I'm worried about you man... :lol:

[caiusbeerquitius]

Hmm.
I think it is quite difficult to say, what kind of material might be displayed here. The Augustean Legions seem to have had quite rich decorations, this is also the case for the 3rd century, where regular cavalry helmets were gilded or silvered. I did not want to say that leather is no option, rather that I think in the view of a pretorian it might not have been the first choice. But then again, sheet gold or silver can be applied to leather as well.

Apart from that: The sword hilt on Tarbi´s example in the right lower corner is then leather covered and stitched, too?

Most Roman leather we know of is rather thin and mostly from sheep and goats. This material is, compared to the thick cattle-leather used for wax-cooked armour and similar, not really usable as armour. It is smooth, flexible and waterproof, that is why you tan the rawhide, right? Rawhide, on the other side, also from these animals, is far better suited as armour. The Dura Lamellar armour is as far as I can remember also from rawhide.
If the surface of the rawhide is traeted, either with wax or with oil, it becomes quite durable as well.

[Graham Sumner]

Travis wrote:

It's very scientific.

If they like it, it's Greek. If they don't, it's Roman.

So let's look at this...

If it's visual evidence that makes it look like the object had leather parts...then the artist goofed.

It's airtight! No one can argue!

Ugh. A HUGE part of my dissertation has been dismantling just this sort of thinking.

Further evidence of this is the Hippopotamus armour mentioned by Pliny. He says Hippopotamus armour was useless when wet. The scientific approach is not to say 'wow who on earth had Hippopotamus armour, is there any more evidence for this? but Ahh... proof that leather armour was useless and therefore did not exist!

As you say Travis an airtight argument.

Graham.

[tlclark]

One word: Rawhide.

Jim, frater, you've got to seek some help with this rawhide fetish of yours... I'm worried about you man... :lol:

Matt,

Ask him about the "spank-o-matic" some time. :wink:

[tlclark]

Christian,

I think that's sensible. I suspect that one reason arguing in favor of leather is cost and ease of replacement. If you want a fancy molded relief head plate, it might be easier to make it from leather than from metal. As it is decorative anyway, it wouldn't make any difference to the object's defensive properties. Also, most of this stuff was painted, so leather might take paint better.

Travis