Face mask or face guard in late roman period

[Nathan Ross]

This mask, which something resembles the masks from Topkapi

Does anyone have a picture of either this one or the Topkapi examples (aside from the rough sketch in the Osprey book?)

[Ildar]

Does anyone have a picture of either this one or the Topkapi examples

My mistake! The masks are not in Topkapi, but in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, they were found during the excavations of the Great Palace.

[attachment=6526]great_palace_masks.jpg[/attachment]

UPD:

The mask from Sisak can be seen on the video (2:55), the link to which was courteously supplied by Mike Bishop. Unfortunately, the video has been expanded from the 4:3 to 16:9 format. I am attaching a photo in the corrected proportions.

[attachment=6527]sisakmask-1.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=6528]sisakmask-2.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=6529]sisakmask-3.jpg[/attachment]

[koechlyruestow]

Robert Vermaat wrote:
I can surely see the differences between Syrian cities and those in Gaul, and I also see the difference between a fine piece of equipment and one that seems to be crude. However:
- one item is clearly made for practical use, while the other is made for a different purpose. Usable yes, but made to show off.

If you say so Robert. ;-) I would have thought that the "sports helmets" were made to show off, and what a lot of ugly mugs they have, do not even come close to the Emesa helmet, but of course I could be wrong.

- the differences between both items has nothing to do with the ability to make them, nor does it reflect on the regions of origin. I have no doubt (as other items prove) that in Gaul, elaborately decorated helmets could be produced. They were.

Elaborately decorated yes, but as beautifully decorated and well proportioned like the Syrian helmet, no, I have to disagree with you there. And I have seen no other "Gesichtshelme" with such a succesfull attempt at portraiture. If you know of examples, please tel me, my knowledge is limited mostly to H. Russell Robinson and Antike Helme (1988).

Back to our discussion, I see no reason to assume differences in equipment between Roman units from the East and those from the West, based on ‘differences in civilization’ between East and West. The army produced for everyone to the same standard, and although soldiers surely bought local items of equipment they did not replace their entire kit with those.

"The army produced", could you be more specific? Not their entire kit, something maybe? Like a lamellar cuirass? Or would that go too far?

I can even go beyond that, local auxiliaries and allies would even be seen to wear such equipment to some extent, I have no doubt of it.

Wow, seems we almost agree. But only the auxiliaries and alies, to some extent, the legions were supplied by "the army"?

But it goes to far to look at a deity from Hatra and simply say ‘look, the influenced Rome’ and to go on accepting that ‘therefore’, Roman legionaries ‘had to’ wear the same equipment. Rome produced armour for their troops, and so far we don’t see them producing lamellar.

And "Rome" is the same as "the army"? And then they brought it to Syria?

I am talking about what was in the shop in Roman and non-Roman Syria. The sculpture shows us lamelar armour in the Phoenician/Assyrian style was stil there, and I suspect that it did not say in The Roman Legionary's Rulebook that "thou shall not wear lamellar armour, thou shall only put on segmented armour", and I therefore suggest it is very likely they started to wear local equipment as part of an adaptation to local circumstances. Or did the Romans not do that either?

But to return to my idea about the origin of what Heliodorus was talking about, his description sounds very much like that of a "sports helmet", the type of helmet the civilians would see when the soldiers put on their armour, as you say, to show off. That is exactly why they would put on their armour in peacetime, because it is shiny and colourfull and sensational, a magnificent show of Roman power and prestige for festivals and celebrations.

[Caballo]

By way of comparison, this mask from the Yorkshire Museum- I'm trying to find more details re its background and "precise" dating?

[M. Demetrius]

Zounds! Thou hast forgotten thy toupee, sire! :-D

[Nathan Ross]

The masks are not in Topkapi, but in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum

Very strange looking things! Did you say they were 6th century or later? There's a vague resemblance to the Sutton Hoo mask, but they appear very crude, and quite different to the earlier ones...

I am attaching a photo in the corrected proportions.

[attachment=6529]sisakmask-3.jpg[/attachment]

Now that's sinister! Quite reminiscent of those black-laquered samurai facemasks. Is it iron, bronze, or what? How secure is the 4th century dating?

I notice there are holes all round the rim - could be for a leather edging, as seen on a number of late Roman ridge helmets. Or alternatively perhaps to attach a layer of gold plating to it? Or maybe to lace it to a surrounding hood or mail coif?

[markusaurelius]

I notice there are holes all round the rim - could be for a leather edging, as seen on a number of late Roman ridge helmets.

Something that didn't go unnoticed by myself as well. Certainly has a Late Roman feel to it if nothing else. Make you wonder if the Sutton Hoo find is really just a late version of a Roman item. Something that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Great discussion!

[Virilis]

This mask reminds me of the Kipchak masked helmets and I am surprised if it is dated as early as fourth century AD :? ...

[markusaurelius]

This mask reminds me of the Kipchak masked helmets and I am surprised if it is dated as early as fourth century AD :? ...

Hence the google search with a more detailed explanation. I guess we need better sourcing to know the true dating..... Good catch Virilis

[attachment=6532]picture1sfy.png[/attachment]

[jho]

Now that's sinister! Quite reminiscent of those black-laquered samurai facemasks. Is it iron, bronze, or what? How secure is the 4th century dating?

I notice there are holes all round the rim - could be for a leather edging, as seen on a number of late Roman ridge helmets. Or alternatively perhaps to attach a layer of gold plating to it? Or maybe to lace it to a surrounding hood or mail coif?

It is a river find so there is no dating context. I am not a fan of stylistic dating - there are many early face masks with fairly "primitive" features. However, in addition to the holes around the rim there is another feature highly reminiscent of 4th century ridge helmets: The double slit on the left forehead (unless it is just a consequence of corrosion) is very similar to the double slit found on neck guards of many ridge helmets and believed to have received leather bands to connect them to the helmet.

[Robert Vermaat]

- the differences between both items has nothing to do with the ability to make them, nor does it reflect on the regions of origin. I have no doubt (as other items prove) that in Gaul, elaborately decorated helmets could be produced. They were.

Elaborately decorated yes, but as beautifully decorated and well proportioned like the Syrian helmet, no, I have to disagree with you there. And I have seen no other "Gesichtshelme" with such a succesfull attempt at portraiture. If you know of examples, please tel me, my knowledge is limited mostly to H. Russell Robinson and Antike Helme (1988).

No, I was not referring to face masks, but to helmets in general.

But how about the Crosby Garrett helmet? I think that one is a match for the Emesa helmet.

[attachment=6533]CrosbyGarrettHelmet.jpg[/attachment]

Or the Ribchester helmet?

[attachment=6534]250px-Ribchester_Helmet_c.jpg[/attachment]

But to return to my idea about the origin of what Heliodorus was talking about, his description sounds very much like that of a "sports helmet", the type of helmet the civilians would see when the soldiers put on their armour, as you say, to show off. That is exactly why they would put on their armour in peacetime, because it is shiny and colourfull and sensational, a magnificent show of Roman power and prestige for festivals and celebrations.

I agree, those would be the occasions, but I think we disagree on the number of occasions in with the military mixed with civilians, wearing their best armour. I think that almost never happened, save for a few parades.

[Robert Vermaat]

It is a river find so there is no dating context. I am not a fan of stylistic dating - there are many early face masks with fairly "primitive" features.

Me neither, but we seem to have a good context here, as such masks were well enough dated in other areas.
They look quite nice though.

Otherwise, yes, there were other Roman face masks with 'primitive' features - I'm thinking of a gladiator face mask?

[Conal]

some interesting illustrations on here ref Kipchak ...

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthrea...e!/page198

[Macharivs]

I must say thank you to every gentleman answering my post!Im a bit upset though,about no evidence for inf.men BUT,im also glad that i started this very interesting discussion.

[koechlyruestow]

Robert Vermaat wrote:
But how about the Crosby Garrett helmet? I think that one is a match for the Emesa helmet. Or the Ribchester helmet?

I admit this is difficult to put into words. I could point out to you the much more schematical depiction of anatomy of these helmets, but that is not really it, schematical anatomy does not preclude beauty, and the Vize face helmet is anatomically correct, the Straubing helmet has an actual expression. However, I find all these face helmets looking at you like dead fish. They are carnival masks, the Emesa helmet is a silver man, however freaky. It is in fact a very plain and simple helmet, but the decoration on the brow and neck-guard is realy beautifull, much sharper than the decorations on the sports helmets, the small ear-guard very much unlike the usual ungainly pieces attached to the side of the helmet. You see, now I writing like an art critic.