Painted legionary helmets?

[Peroni]

Robert wrote...

I recall that Authari told me it was based on the Via Maria catacomb:

Could the depiction show embossed decoration? When I draw/paint Roman helmets, I obviously paint the eyebrows to be visible. Could this not just be the artist showing the embossing?

[Virilis]

I think too that the artist has painted the embossed decorations of the helmet on this "fresco". What is interesting is the fact that this Intercisa helmet seems to be gilded or made of brass? Should we inform Deepeeka about this :wink: ?

[Tarbicus]

Robert wrote...

I recall that Authari told me it was based on the Via Maria catacomb:

Could the depiction show embossed decoration? When I draw/paint Roman helmets, I obviously paint the eyebrows to be visible. Could this not just be the artist showing the embossing?

It certainly could, BUT, no attempt is made to define them as outlines when he had a thin enough brush to do so (eyebrows, eyes, cheekguards, etc).

[Matt Lukes]

They certainly had all the ingredients, Basic oil paint holds on metal no problem. I just finished a few experiments in that direction and ended up with a painted 12th century nasal helmet in heraldic colours. The paint is pigment (aniline ersatz cinnabar, chomium oxide ersatz verdigris and red ochre) in bleached linseed oil, no siccatives or other additives. It takes a long time to dry, but holds very firmly. I painted a steel bowl for testing purposes, and the only way we managed to seriously damage the paint was with the pointy end of a 400-g hammer. It stood up to rattan sticks, mallets, the flat end of a carpenter's hammer, and repeatedly being stomped on.

Wonderful! I'd wondered if a straight pigment/linseed oil mixture would work- thanks

[Daniel S Peterson]

I don't think it is correct to say eyes were painted on all those late Roman helmets in which they are not embossed. Several helmets of the late period, such as Deurne were never intended to have eyes. We therefore do not know how important having eyes would be from a religious or superstitious point of view. It may have been purely decorative, or some soldiers were less superstitious than others. Rank should not be a factor here, for the large round jewels of Berkasova 1 and Budapest are clearly intended to be "eyes".

There is excellent evidence for painted Hellenistic helmets, particularly Macedonian, but very little suggestion of paint on Roman ones.

It would be difficult for painted design to last very long on the smooth surface of a metal helmet. It is possible that the many etched designs seen of early Italian helmets, could have been a base for a painted deisgn, but there is no indication of this on imperial era service helmets.

The helmets of the ancient world which seem to have been painted the most seem tare those seen c

[Robert Vermaat]

I don't think it is correct to say eyes were painted on all those late Roman helmets in which they are not embossed. Several helmets of the late period, such as Deurne were never intended to have eyes. We therefore do not know how important having eyes would be from a religious or superstitious point of view. It may have been purely decorative, or some soldiers were less superstitious than others. Rank should not be a factor here, for the large round jewels of Berkasova 1 and Budapest are clearly intended to be "eyes".

I'm not so sure about that last one. OK, the sit in positions that could be explained as 'eyes', but they could have been 'eye-shaped' yet they are not. To me they're not eys but I can be mistaken.

All other Berkasovo-type helmets do not show any signs of eye-like decorations. Intercisa helmets do show such decorations, but some do not (Worms, Augst, both Augsburg-Pfersee). It may have been a temporary thing.

The helmets of the ancient world which seem to have been painted the most seem tare those seen c

I hope you did not die in mid-sentence?

[Conal]

Robert

If not eyes then why the eye brows on teh one on the right ?

Conal

[Robert Vermaat]

If not eyes then why the eye brows on teh one on the right ?

Nice one Conal, but if you start taking those decoration literally, it also means this helmet has 'eyes in the back of his head'!!
That's why I see this as decoration, no more than that. Maybe the eyes were an inspiration, but I really think they were no longer meant to depict real eyes like those on an Intercisa.

[Tarbicus]

Actually Rob, that helmet doesn't have the same pattern on the back. It's missing the eyebrows, which suggests their being present on the front are meant to be exactly that, with the jewels being eyes. The rear 'eye' jewels are also orientated differently, which probably could mean they are not even supposed to be eyes.

[Conal]

The left hand helmets "eyes" are orientated in a way which is not best suited to representing eyes using ovals ... have the bowl halves been put on backward ?

Got any pictures of the back of this one ?

[Tarbicus]

The "apotropaic" eye is a common talisman amongst the ancients to turn back or ward off evil and harm. If these were such then it would make complete sense for soldiers to use them, and where better than on their helmets beneath those lovely big eyebrows.

[Conal]

"The "apotropaic" eye is a common talisman"

Only usually the one though .... you need to be winking :wink:

[Tarbicus]

Ahhh, flip :roll: Good point.

[Robert Vermaat]

Actually Rob, that helmet doesn't have the same pattern on the back. It's missing the eyebrows, which suggests their being present on the front are meant to be exactly that, with the jewels being eyes. The rear 'eye' jewels are also orientated differently, which probably could mean they are not even supposed to be eyes.

@Tarbi:
I'm not sure you can explain it so literally. Are the 'eyebrows' really eyebrows? If they are, the eyes at the back must be eyes as well, even without eyebrows. Other helmets also lack eyebrows. Therefore I assume that this is just a decoration, nothing more.

The left hand helmets "eyes" are orientated in a way which is not best suited to representing eyes using ovals ... have the bowl halves been put on backward ?
Got any pictures of the back of this one ?

@ Conal:
Yes, and it's mirroring the other half alright.

[Tarbicus]

Actually Rob, that helmet doesn't have the same pattern on the back. It's missing the eyebrows, which suggests their being present on the front are meant to be exactly that, with the jewels being eyes. The rear 'eye' jewels are also orientated differently, which probably could mean they are not even supposed to be eyes.

@Tarbi:
I'm not sure you can explain it so literally. Are the 'eyebrows' really eyebrows? If they are, the eyes at the back must be eyes as well, even without eyebrows. Other helmets also lack eyebrows. Therefore I assume that this is just a decoration, nothing more.

Actually mate, I have to disagree with you there for once. I honestly think that the "eyes", being flat ovals, with an arrangement above them in an arc represent eyes and eyebrows. The different orientation of the rear corresponding jewels tell me they are not meant to represent eyes, which in itself is a telling thing about the ones on the front. Why not just make them symmetrical?