Gallic D reconstruction

[Doc]

Jurjen,

That is true. The right rosette on the neckguard does have a repair. It is the same as the rosettes on the survivng cheekpiece.

It is true that we cannot categorically say that the Gallic D helmet is for an office or regular soldier. However, using the criteria that have and continue to be used to give insight on specific details of the helmet, it is more likely that it would have been fitted with a transverse crest. Especially since according to sculpture, all other crests are front to back while centurio crests appear transverse. Not to mention that there are helmets that reflect the sculptures in this respect. I know that sculpture is not always reliable, but in this case, they tell us something that is quite real.

[Robert Vermaat]

Sorry guys, I had to split this discussion from the 'show your Roman impression' thread, as it warrented a separate thread.

[jho]

I have written an email to Dr. Klein, the head of the archaeology department at the museum and included the question of the rosettes.

This is just to let you know that I have received a very friendly reply from Dr. Klein indicating that he is in the process of preparing a publication on all Mainz helmet finds. In this context the remains of this helmet will be subjected to scientific research which will hopefully determine the material from which the rosettes were made. I asked him to update me on the progress of his publication.

[jvrjenivs]

ah, sounds cool. I now got my bowl tinned, so I now can start putting it together next week, when I'm in my workshop again.

Just a question I'm now puzzling with. I want to use it in my centurio impression, but I don't see any attachment possibilities for the crest on the original expect for the double crest holder. Do others think a crest holder would be firm enough to hold the crest in his own. I thought about altering it bit (as I'm doing that in this version anyway), so as to add 2 hooks on the sides.

[Virilis]

I now got my bowl tinned

Jurjen, that must have been painful :wink: ...

[jvrjenivs]

I now got my bowl tinned

Jurjen, that must have been painful :wink: ...

Lol. Of course I meant the bowl of my new helmet. But, it looks great now! I certainly like it.

[Virilis]

Photos please !

[jvrjenivs]

will follow as soon as I've start assembling it, again.

[Doc]

Jurjen,

The double slot works fine. I too have one and no side hooks are required. If you add a feature that was not there it sort of dulls the accuracy-no?

I would suggest a crest holder that has three prongs at the top. The outer two could be used to stabilize the crest from swinging around while the third central prong can go into the crest box at its center preventing for it to slide back and forth.

I have a double slotted crest holder that is flat on the top with two small holes punched into it. I postioned this flat section at the bottom of my crest box and secured it with two small domed nails.

[jvrjenivs]

The double slot works fine. I too have one and no side hooks are required. If you add a feature that was not there it sort of dulls the accuracy-no?

You'r totally right on this. But as I made some other alteration already, as I lack some skills to do these things right, I'm in dubio if I could add another alteration.

I would suggest a crest holder that has three prongs at the top. The outer two could be used to stabilize the crest from swinging around while the third central prong can go into the crest box at its center preventing for it to slide back and forth.

I have a double slotted crest holder that is flat on the top with two small holes punched into it. I postioned this flat section at the bottom of my crest box and secured it with two small domed nails.

I think I see what you mean. The reason for asking is however the fact that I experienced with my current helmet, where the crest fits in the hook tightly and is attached to both sides of the helmet, there still can be big movements of the crest when it's getting a bit windy. Of course, when there is to much wind, I'll not put it up at all, but I still wonder if a signle attachement in the middle of a crest box can do enough fixation. I mean, my crest functions as a very good windscreen.

[Robert]

I was reading through the posts and my eye was caught by the comment on a rightside cheekplate being more slender then the one on the left. Now recently, I tried shooting my bow with my Gallic H and found the richtcheekpiece to be a nuisence in anchoring my right hand for a good shot. It pushed my hand so far off line I only just clipped the target (where I normaly am pretty acurate with those things). A soldier faces with the same problem could have cut down the cheekplate a bit.

[jho]

It is unlikely that the difference in size represents "cutting back" in this case because the cheek pieces had different decoration. This makes it more probable that a damaged cheek piece was replaced with a completely different cheek piece from a completely different helmet.

However, it is interesting to observe that conical helmets are associated with archers and that the only conical helmet found complete with cheek pieces (Karaagach, Bulgaria) has slender cheek pieces which show no neck flange. A few more of these cheekpieces have been found but without clear connection to this type of helmet.

[jvrjenivs]

It is unlikely that the difference in size represents "cutting back" in this case because the cheek pieces had different decoration.

This makes it more probable that a damaged cheek piece was replaced with a completely different cheek piece from a completely different helmet.

But I don't think so, either, as on the back plate of the helmet also some rosettes where replaced, and this is done with the same design as the ones on the 'replaced' cheekpiece.

[Doc]

Thats correct gentlemen. When facing the helmet from the back, the right rosette was in fact brass NOT silver like the others.

The different cheekpiece In my opinion was a repair. This was also the opinion of Lindenschmit (I think I spelled it correctly). However, he wrote in his article, that he does not believe this to be an officers helmet. I am not sure why he said this since I read the article a while back.

When I had my helmet made, I had different cheekpieces made. A set in the original silver rosette design and a set with the brass rosettes so that I can interchange at will just like in the original. I also contemplated on having a removable neckguard rosette to switch from the brass to the silver and vice versa. However, given that rosettes were set firmly in place, this would have added a fictional element. Thus I chose to leave all silver and have only the cheekpieces replaceable (like in realtiy).

Then it occurred to me that the objective of reconstructions is to make an object the way it would have been when FIRST created not with a repair or other damage that would have occurred during use (provided that there is solid evidence for the original appearence otherwise one has to work with whatever is available). I have seen other reconstructions of the "D" and they all sport the brass rosettes on both cheekpieces. The one Brian Stobbs made for me was the first to be correct according to the original find and report before it was destroyed.

[jvrjenivs]

Photos please !

It took a while, but here they are. Did the first bit of assembling today. That is the edging and the decorated parts. Still have to make the crestholder and the earguards. Also all rosettes have to be attached. I'm not sure when I'll be able to finish this piece, but I hope it wouldn't take that long anymore.