Mainz Gallic G eyebrows all wrong??

[PhilusEstilius]

My mistake it's Concave not Convex.

[Magnus]

Ok, is it actually a 3rd ridge, or is it more of a rounded area between the top and bottom ridges? That's what it looks like to me...like the middle is rounded and slightly raised.

[PhilusEstilius]

What infact we have Matt is two eyebrows the upper is a narrow one where the lower is a wider, however the lower one is concave between it's upper and lower edges that are indeed both raised which is causeing Adrian to think the lower bulge to be another eyebrow.

[Magnus]

So the part I thought was bulging out is actually a low area?

[Peroni]

causeing Adrian to think the lower bulge to be another eyebrow.

Causing me to think? No. See the two pictures in my first post! There are three separate, delineated ridges! :wink:
http://w10.eleven2.com/~joorthuy/rat/vi ... 180#141534

[Tarbicus]

Stayed out of this one so far.

I reckon you're right, Ade. The lighting on the ridges seems to be three ridges (one thin, one thick, one thin) based on the lighting on the rest of the helmet.

Anyone got any better pictures?

Added: http://www.ruestungsschmiede.de/Worms_H ... ic_G_1.jpg

[Crispvs]

Yes, I too feel compelled to say that based on the evidence he has demonstrated, Peronis has made a very good case for there being a third ridge to each of the eyebrows of the Worms Gallic 'G' and that until someone conclusively shows it to be otherwise I will support that position(fitting as it does with the evidence of virtually all other mid-first century AD eyebrows).

Crispvs

[PhilusEstilius]

I think that when we go to the post concerning the Italic A, where Jim Bowers has put some links there is a front view of the Gallic G that does not appear to show such an extra eyebrow.

[Peroni]

That's because that picture is too small to see any such detail :wink:

You can even see the three ridges on this rear angled photo..
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/index2.php ... allG-8.jpg

[Dean Cunningham metalsmit]

I asked this question also on a more recent post not knowing this thread existed. I have looked at photos of this helmet that are not on RAT nor will I post them as they are copy righted. There are 3 distinct ridges. Robinson and everyone else has this helmet wrong. I have been pouring over every available discussion, paper, description and photo I can find of this.

[PhilusEstilius]

In the HRR book Robinson simply refers to the eyebrows of the G as being broad leaf type, however where we look at the front view of the Gallic I in his book these are of similar style to the G.
The H has most definately three and the D has four, but I still go along with the thoughts of Jasper about under glass distortion.
In fact there is the type F in Mainz that has no find spot and is not unlike it but it's not a third eyebrow but simply a concavity and the re-construction of Robinson is about right.

[Dean Cunningham metalsmit]

Well we can agree to disagree. I have several very clear photos of his helmet not under glass and it is clear, to my eye, from these photos there are three ridges. One of these photos is in the book Antike Helme published by the RGZM if anyone cares to take a look. I have done his helmet in the past and I got it wrong as well so this is a case of live and learn for me as well as don't rely on someone else's interpretation. Which is generally good advice for life.



Dean

[Gaius Colletti]

Essentially, aren't the Imperial Gallic G, H, and I helms practically the same helmet with slightly different variations? Perhaps I do not have as keen of an ete as some more exact people, but it is already widely acceptable that the H is just a G with a slightly larger cheekguards (Wasn't the original found without cheekguards?). So I believe the I's are just brass versions of the Gallic G, with slightly different cheekguards and different crest holders? Anyone else?

[Dean Cunningham metalsmit]

Honestly the Robinson typology is too linear and should probably be tossed right out the window.

[Gaius Colletti]

Robinson did wonders for for his time, but I agree some of his typology would appear to be rather linear. RAT would be an excellent place to re-categorize helmets, but I don't think many people would be supportive of something that outsiders most likely would consider to be trivial