Face mask or face guard in late roman period

[Robert Vermaat]

No, I referring to the Byzantine ones.
Which Turkish ones are you referring to?

scroll back 2 months, ref. the Kipchac masks found in Constantinople.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

*now to the correct place
Hi everyone!
I really need some sources on whether romans used face masks,or full-face guards on helmets in the late roman period,for infantryman,or not.I know cavalry used them,but i was thinking about:could infantryman wear those type of helmets?Looking forward to any answer,thank you very much.

I believe 7 masks were found in the imperial palace in Constantinople.
But this is a lot later than the widow most people would term Late Roman, although they were the late Empire.

Robert. I don't see any response to my post from 2 months ago,
I see a quote afterwards from a previous post where you had mentioned Turkish masks, but the masks I am referring to were discussed as being given to certain elements of the Guard, so Byzantine, not Turkish.

[Robert Vermaat]

Byron,
All masks 'from the palace' that I saw in the thread were those 'Turkish' masks. If you hve references to others besides those, I'd really like to see them.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Check your copies of either Byzantine Imperial Guardsmen, or Varangian Guard by Osprey.
Not esteemed tomes for sure but relatively decent sources for some info.
I cannot quote page numbers, as I am on my way offshore.

[Kai]

The picture and the text in question:


[attachment=7126]mask.jpg[/attachment]

"A single source may perhaps indicate Byzantine use of masked helmets: the Liber de Ceremoniis mentions, in addition to the 80 kassidia issued for the crew of a dhrómon, ten ‘kassidia avtoproposopa’ – perhaps intended for the protokarávoi and proreis officers. During excavations of the Great Palace in 1953, on the marble floor of one room were found nine iron masks, about 7in (18cm) long, with holes for the eyes but not for the mouth, and with small pairs of fastening holes at the top and in the middle of each side. The fact that they were all of iron, had no mouth holes, were found together, and were very close in number to those mentioned in De Cerimoniis for the issue to a warship’s officers, might suggest that they were battle masks for attachment to helmets. Their shape recalls the mask visors of helmets still visible on the fragmentary 5th-century Columns of Theodosius and Arcadius, and also that of the 7th-century Sutton Hoo helmet from Britain, which shows Late Roman influence. Intriguingly, the passage from Constantine Porphyrogenitus’s book also suggests that the kassidia avtoprosopa were supplied to Siphonatores – the operators of the main Greek Fire projecting machine or katakorax." (D'Amato, Byzantine Imperial Guardsman, pp.52-53)

[Ildar]

All masks 'from the palace' that I saw in the thread were those 'Turkish' masks.

No, Robert, you don't understand. Neither the masks, nor the Great Palace of Constantinople where they were found, have any relation to the Turks.

If you hve references to others besides those, I'd really like to see them.

I think you can find the answers in this book: The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors: Second Report. D. Talbot Rice (ed.). Edinburgh, 1958.

UPD: As I was told, this book does not have anything on these masks. Apparently, one would need to look at other publications by D. Talbot Rice.

[Robert Vermaat]

We are clearly discussing the same helmets, but the dating is also clearly disputed. This was posted here 3 months ago, so here it goes again.

Kai, strangely the text with your image suggests a 10th- century date, while the text itself suggests a late Roman origin??


Ildar, I never suggested that the palace had Turkish connections. However, at least some experts date these facemasks to the 12th-13th century, and see a Cuman-Kipchak (in my opinion 'Turkish') origin.

That's why I have formed my opinion: these facemasks are much, much later than the late Roman period.

[attachment=7149]picture1sfy.png[/attachment]

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

We are clearly discussing the same helmets, but the dating is also clearly disputed. This was posted here 3 months ago, so here it goes again.

Kai, strangely the text with your image suggests a 10th- century date, while the text itself suggests a late Roman origin??


Ildar, I never suggested that the palace had Turkish connections. However, at least some experts date these facemasks to the 12th-13th century, and see a Cuman-Kipchak (in my opinion 'Turkish') origin.

That's why I have formed my opinion: these facemasks are much, much later than the late Roman period.

[attachment=7149]picture1sfy.png[/attachment]

HA HA Robert!! Well if it only your opinion, than I am pleased to disagree with you!
The later dating still makes these Late Roman, as in Byzantine. NOT Turkish! (Greek maybe....) ;-)

[Robert Vermaat]

I notice that several members have problems with my use of the word 'Turkish'. This is NOT meant as a designation of 'Turkish' as in post-1453, but to the cultural and stylistic use of the word. The dating and heritage of these masks is based on a supposed presence of Cuman/Kipchac soldiers at the Byzantine court, which is of course a well-established fact.

And Byron - apparently it's not 'only' y opinion, both book cited here give a 10th-13th c. date.
I still see no reason to date these masks, on stylictic grounds, a Late Roman. The supposed likeeness to the Sutton Hoo helmet is noted, but that helmet also postdates the late Roman period by several centuries. the supposed likeness to similar helmets on the Column of Arcadius ios dangerous - we can't prove that anymore. the surviviving sketches are unfortunately just that - sketches.

At least we've established that we're talking about the same facemasks, that's a relief. :wink:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Late Roman also = Byzantine, unless you believe the Roman world ended in 410!

[Robert Vermaat]

Are we really going into that one?
Sure, some have the 'Byzantine' period starting with Diocletian. But as the 'Byzantine' period extends into the 15th c., I find it less practical to speak of 'Late Roman' from Diocletian to Romulus, and only then of 'Byzantine'.

Therefore, f the date of these facemasks is 8th to 12th c., they are Byzantine, not Late Roman.

[Rado]

Cavalry axillary mask II century A.D. museum of Abritvs Razgrad Bulgaria

[jvrjenivs]

Cavalry axillary mask II century A.D. museum of Abritvs Razgrad Bulgaria

Thanks Rado. Facemask helmets from 2nd and early third century we know enough, but we're talking a bit 'later' here.

[Rado]

Cavalry axillary mask II century A.D. museum of Abritvs Razgrad Bulgaria

Thanks Rado. Facemask helmets from 2nd and early third century we know enough, but we're talking a bit 'later' here.

I'm sorry for the spam !You can move it where you considered in another appropriate topic or delete this post.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

OK, Robert, but the Byzantines regarded themselves as Roman even as late as the final death throes,, so late roman is very appropriate.
However, if the time period is to be limited to the early late roman time frame then so be it.