Painted legionary helmets?

[Robert Vermaat]

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?

If the Berkasovo I indeed is meant to have eyes on the front, it would be unique. But because the similar jewels on the Budapest helmet lack similar ‘eyebrows’, I doubt very much if those on the Berkasovo need to represent eyes. I mean, if you disqualify the jewels on the back as eyes, those on the Budapest aren’t eyes either.

[Conal]

"if you disqualify the jewels on the back as eyes, those on the Budapest aren’t eyes either"

Hence my question about the back of the Budapest helmet .... come on Robert give up on this one or i'll do a poll 8)

[Tarbicus]

If the Berkasovo I indeed is meant to have eyes on the front, it would be unique. But because the similar jewels on the Budapest helmet lack similar ‘eyebrows’, I doubt very much if those on the Berkasovo need to represent eyes. I mean, if you disqualify the jewels on the back as eyes, those on the Budapest aren’t eyes either.

I never said that the Budapest jewels are eyes, and to me they don't look like it. However, that does not preclude the Berkasovo from representing eyes on the front, especially given their position, shape and jewels above them. We know other helmets of a similar period had embossed eyes, and sometimes when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's quite simply a duck. Within the context of the helmet itself they are an exception and specific, but within a broader context they follow a rule.

[Peroni]

and sometimes when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's quite simply a duck.

Quack!

they're definately eyebrows to me Robert!

Quack!

[Caballo]

I really like the "evil eye" hypothesis- it could even be a follow on from the earlier helmets representing a hoplite helmet tilted back.
The thing that bothered me was the lack of evidence for a painted helmet. Painted spears, yes (Notitia Dignitatum). The Dura shields where they show helmets show no sign of decoration. Decoration shown in statues looks embossed.
But I did find this, from Nabeul in Tunisia, mid fourth century, from the House of the Nymphs. Looks painted to me....

[Caius Fabius]

eyes on the back of the helmet

Every good commander or NCO needs eyes in the back of his head.... :lol:

[Robert Vermaat]

and sometimes when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's quite simply a duck.

Quack!
they're definately eyebrows to me Robert!
Quack!

Quit yer qackin'! :evil:
You guys must be blind. The eyes - it's a swan for sure! :wink:

[Tarbicus]

Quit yer qackin'! :evil:
You guys must be blind. The eyes - it's a swan for sure! :wink:

[url:1td54g3c]http://www.angelfire.com/film/dannykaye/UglyDuckling.htm[/url]

[Virilis]

So should we ask H. C. Andersen if the late roman helmets were painted? Now I`m confused hock: ...

[Razor]

If the Berkasovo I indeed is meant to have eyes on the front, it would be unique. But because the similar jewels on the Budapest helmet lack similar ‘eyebrows’, I doubt very much if those on the Berkasovo need to represent eyes. I mean, if you disqualify the jewels on the back as eyes, those on the Budapest aren’t eyes either.

The front of the jeweled Berkasovo helmet does seem to have eyes in my opinion.

That doesn't have to mean that every jeweled helmet need to have eyes like the Budapest helmet. Perhaps the placements of these jewels on the Berkasovo helmet were just some kind of a 'joke' to form eyes and eyebrows instead of being just symmetrical/boring/unoriginal?

I'm not sure about the back of the helmet though as they don't imply being eyes (hence missing the eyebrows). But then again like said, perhaps the eye-thingy was just an original variation (/joke) of the decoration.

Just my thoughts...

[Uwe Bahr]

Avete omnes,

the following picture shows a non-Roman bronx example from a lombard tomp. It shows a special form of the Negau type with rivetted eyes and eye brows. The pupils of the eye are made of (formerly) blue glass:

[url:dmpbrqrg]http://people.freenet.de/u-bahr/lombardisch.jpg[/url]

Jim, the Imperial Gallic with the painted eyes is quite nice but why should the Romans have embossed the eye brows but only painted the eyes? Also they used to polish their armor regularly and I cannot imagine that painted eyes would have endured this procedure for long.

Greets - Uwe

[Tarbicus]

[url:105we5ri]http://people.freenet.de/u-bahr/lombardisch.jpg[/url]
Non-Roman bronx example from a lombard tomp. It shows a special form of the Negau type with rivetted eyes and eye brows. The pupils of the eye are made of (formerly) blue glass.

Jim, the Imperial Gallic with the painted eyes is quite nice but why should the Romans have embossed the eye brows but only painted the eyes. Also they used to polish their armor regularly and I cannot imagine that painted eyes would have endured this procedure for long.

Excellent points Uwe and I think is the main flaw, if not fatal one, in the idea of painted eyes so far. Thanks. The eyebrows could just be to emphasis the real ones under the helmet's rim I suppose, as well as adding protection.

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Avete,omnes,
I must say that the idea of painted helmets seems plausible.
I don't even think it impossible to want eyes in the back
of one's head( the all seeing eye,etc) for a superstitious people.
My problem would be with the paint. Oil paint, as we know it, wasn't
in use until after the renaisance,I believe. Painting techniques
had remained the same for a very long time.
Anyone ever painted a car? Even now,we use special binders
to make the paint adhere to metal lest it be scratched off
very easily.
I like your idea though,Jim.

(p.s. I had a helmet cover in the military in the 80's).

[Magnus]

I think some of you are making something out of nothing. If those jewels are meant to represent "eyes", then why are they placed so high up on the helmet? All the other examples shown here in this thread (including the one posted by Uwe) have the eyes in a closer, more frontal location to the where the actual eyes of the helmet wearer would be.

The decorative differences on the front vs back on that Intercisa aren't definitively eyebrows at all..unless people had jewels placed in theirs as some kind of fashion. :wink: Seriously, I don't think they're made to represent eyes in the fashion that this thread was originally about. Like Robert said, they may have been inspired by real eyes, or maybe the decorative work was changed to help differentiate the front and the back. But it's definately not enough to go on to say that they were supposed to be eyes.

[Conal]

why are they placed so high up on the helmet?

They are as low as the helmet style allows.

Like Robert said, they may have been inspired by real eyes, or maybe the decorative work was changed to help differentiate the front and the back. But it's definately not enough to go on to say that they were supposed to be eyes.

They are eye shaped jewels, with eyebrows picked out in jewels .... it's definately enough to say that they represent eyes ....... if you accept that they were inspired by real eyes then what else could they be ??????

As soon as I have worked out how to posta picture I will do a poll ....its the only way