Boeotian helmet decoration

[Theron_of _Sikyon]

How if at all would a Boeotian helmet be decorated? I believe that I have seen pictures in AW that showed feather tubes and one with a crest. Would this be acurate? How about painted like some of the Corinthians?

Theron

[hoplite14gr]

Campanian and Apulian pottery have feathers
Attic pottery and a bronze statue from Corfu museum have crests.
Hellenistic period art shows horsetails

Kind regards

[Theron_of _Sikyon]

Any links or pictures?

Theron

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Are you speaking about the Alexandrian/hellenistic boeotian cavalry helmet or the earlier simpler cap that may have existed in bronze? The pilos(much like the early boeotian) has been depicted with a presumably golden wreath in a boeotian black marble grave stele. Also,the later boeotian has been depicted with a golden wreath on the Alexander mosaic. As Stefanos said the earlier type is shown with typical crest,while some times the later one with a horse tail like crest.
Khaire
Giannis

[Theron_of _Sikyon]

I know that a lot of people look down on the SCA as a historical group so please do not just throw me out for being a member. I am not your tipical Sca member as I strive to build my armour as historicaly as I can to a certain time and place. Right now I am working on one of my two favorite times. This helmet is what was created by an SCA armourer to be as close to the original shape but still fit in the safety guidelines. I wish it looked even more acurate than what it does but I understand why he shaped it the way he did. The helmet will be bronze plated and then I was wishing to dress it up even more. Any help with sugestions will be most appritiated.

[hoplite14gr]

Well nothing wrong trying to be historically accurate no matter what you do.
Yet it would help us if you tell us what time period you want your warrior to be?
It would help a lot with possible suggestions.
Kind regards.

[Theron_of _Sikyon]

Sorry, I forgot that part. I am looking at the high part and a little after Alexander. So for I have the helmet pictures, a pair of nice greaves, a linothorax, and a linen tunic. I would post pictures but curently am deployed and dont have them to hand. I have the parts to make a workable Aspis and was going to make a Dory. Unfortunetly there will be arm and hand protection visable. For the shoes I was thinking that a pair of the high roman boots that La Wrens Nest has are close to the pictures of the greecian high boots.

Edward

[hoplite14gr]

You can use the "Alexander Mosaic" as a guide then.
Kind regards

[MeinPanzer]

There are a few 3rd c. BC helmet molds for Boeotian helmets from Memphis which show that intricate floral designs were embossed into the helmets as decoration:

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/i ... eotian.JPG

[Theron_of _Sikyon]

Thank you for the help. I will post pictures when I get this finished.

Edward

[Paullus Scipio]

There are a few 3rd c. BC helmet molds for Boeotian helmets from Memphis which show that intricate floral designs were embossed into the helmets as decoration:

http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/i ... eotian.JPG

....hold on a sec, Ruben....... presumably if a sheet of bronze was beaten over this mould, the outside of the helmet might be perfectly smooth, and probably polished.....in fact, it would have to be beaten rather hard for the sculpted pattern to appear on the inside of the helmet ( I think that possibly a helmet could be produced, and the pattern might not be "embossed" on the inside at at all ). That would appear to leave three possibilities, viz:
1. The mould pattern was decoration for the mould only, it being an object intended to last and hence worthy of decoration.
2. The mould "pattern" was embossed on the inside of the helmet - perhaps as a means of identifying the products of this mould/armoury
2. The helmet was beaten down sufficiently hard that the pattern appeared on the outside of the helmet.

The latter seems a little unlikely to me, and I would be interested in the opinions of those on the Forum with some experience of working metals over stakes/moulds as to how this could be done. Simple beating seems to me unlikely to "take" such an intricate pattern to produce such a detailed 'grooved' and 'dotted' outside ( unlike, say, a raised mould which could be beaten down to leave a raised pattern )....it seems to me that to produce such grooves would require a 'scribe' of some sort hammered into the metal over the 'groove' in the mould, if a crisp groove were to appear on the finished product, even if rather thin metal was used (as seems to be the case) which would of course not be possible when the pattern beneath the metal is invisible..........if this 'pattern' on the mould really was meant to appear on the outside of the finished product, how was it done? :?

[MeinPanzer]

....hold on a sec, Ruben....... presumably if a sheet of bronze was beaten over this mould, the outside of the helmet might be perfectly smooth, and probably polished.....in fact, it would have to be beaten rather hard for the sculpted pattern to appear on the inside of the helmet ( I think that possibly a helmet could be produced, and the pattern might not be "embossed" on the inside at at all ). That would appear to leave three possibilities, viz:
1. The mould pattern was decoration for the mould only, it being an object intended to last and hence worthy of decoration.
2. The mould "pattern" was embossed on the inside of the helmet - perhaps as a means of identifying the products of this mould/armoury
2. The helmet was beaten down sufficiently hard that the pattern appeared on the outside of the helmet.

The latter seems a little unlikely to me, and I would be interested in the opinions of those on the Forum with some experience of working metals over stakes/moulds as to how this could be done. Simple beating seems to me unlikely to "take" such an intricate pattern to produce such a detailed 'grooved' and 'dotted' outside ( unlike, say, a raised mould which could be beaten down to leave a raised pattern )....it seems to me that to produce such grooves would require a 'scribe' of some sort hammered into the metal over the 'groove' in the mould, if a crisp groove were to appear on the finished product, even if rather thin metal was used (as seems to be the case) which would of course not be possible when the pattern beneath the metal is invisible..........if this 'pattern' on the mould really was meant to appear on the outside of the finished product, how was it done? :?

I don't see why the general shape of the helmet could not have been beaten out as with an undecorated helmet but the details beaten in with a scribe or some other fine tool and thus leaving the design in negative on the surface of the helmet. If the smith had a guide to the pattern of the decoration (or was simply familiar with it enough), he would have no need to see other than to have a point from which to begin and to proceed from there using the underlying pattern as a guide. We should not forget that sculptors, for instance, reproduce almost identical vegetal patterns like these on multiple funerary stelae, so it would not be hard to presume that they had a master design drawn on papyrus. The shield mould also found from the same armoury shows that this is how the bronze facings for Macedonian shields with embossed detail and lettering were made (it features details in negative, like on these moulds, but the facing was obviously beaten so that the decoration was in relief on the outside).

[Paullus Scipio]

The shield mould also found from the same armoury shows that this is how the bronze facings for Macedonian shields with embossed detail and lettering were made (it features details in negative, like on these moulds, but the facing was obviously beaten so that the decoration was in relief on the outside).

....yes, I had these in mind when raising the question.
Firstly, the bronze pelta/shield-facing seems to have been made by beating the shield-face from the BACK onto/into the mould, so that the letters/pattern appear on the finished product on the face/front of the shield in raised relief - feasible when it is borne in mind that the facing was extremely thin - a mere 0.3-0.4 mm on surviving examples. A helmet mould would have to be hollow and bucket shaped to use this technique for helmet making, not solid ( i.e. the opposite method).
Secondly, Greek/Macedonian helmets were of varying thickness in different parts, but typically from 0.75-1.5 mm at a minimum to 2-3 mm or so maximum. They were thus two to ten times as thick, and, I suspect, could not 'take' that sort of detail at that thickness.
The difficulty here is that although the shield-face mould and helmet mould are superficially the same they are used in 'opposite' ways ( one as a 'male', one as a 'female' mould) to produce objects radically different in thickness........hence my queries.

[MeinPanzer]

....yes, I had these in mind when raising the question.
Firstly, the bronze pelta/shield-facing seems to have been made by beating the shield-face from the BACK onto/into the mould, so that the letters/pattern appear on the finished product on the face/front of the shield in raised relief - feasible when it is borne in mind that the facing was extremely thin - a mere 0.3-0.4 mm on surviving examples. A helmet mould would have to be hollow and bucket shaped to use this technique for helmet making, not solid ( i.e. the opposite method).
Secondly, Greek/Macedonian helmets were of varying thickness in different parts, but typically from 0.75-1.5 mm at a minimum to 2-3 mm or so maximum. They were thus two to ten times as thick, and, I suspect, could not 'take' that sort of detail at that thickness
The difficulty here is that although the shield-face mould and helmet mould are superficially the same they are used in 'opposite' ways ( one as a 'male', one as a 'female' mould) to produce objects radically different in thickness........hence my queries.

I, too, would like to hear from some smiths who could comment on this issue. I still see no reason why the helmet could not have been decorated with a design in negative relief, as detailed raised designs are evident on many examples of cheek pieces, for instance, which show that bronze of such a thickness as was used in helmets could take such detail. And indeed, if the desired effect was only to create a shallow negative relief, it may have been easier to work into the metal than having to produce a design in positive relief, as one would only need to properly imprint the desired design crisply on one side of the metal, rather than having to produce a sharply defined form on the other side of it - something which is evidenced in practice (though obviously not with the same level of finesse) by "punctim" inscriptions on helmets.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

How would you remove it from the stone mold?