Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Bronze Age Center. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Assyrian 'Helmets'
Topic Started: Oct 9 2010, 03:16 AM (1,289 Views)
mjbroyles
Member
[ * ]
Hello all,

I am interested in trying to make an Assyrian 'fillet' style helmet. Here is a link to a diagram of one based on bas-reliefs from several museums (British, Louvre, and Berlin).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23939569@N06/5064098066/

Has anyone seen said bas-reliefs, or an actual one? Has anyone ever made such? I am thinking it looks pretty easy, would anyone dispell such thoughts based on their experience?

Thanks in advance.

Cordially,

MJB
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan Howard
Member Avatar
Patron
[ *  *  * ]
It is possible that this is just a metallic reinforcement for a leather helmet?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mjbroyles
Member
[ * ]
Dan,

Thanks for the input. I had not considered that possibility, but if it is discovered to be the case the leather can always be added later. If you input the below flickr account in your browser you can see several bas-reliefs with various helmets on display. In one battle scene there are several figures to the right and at least one apparently from the other side to the left that are all wearing these 'fillets'. There is also another photo in there with exactly the original diagram.

flickr.com/photos/35749829@N03/3524135992/

Cordially,

Michael
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gregory J. Liebau
Fearless Leader
[ *  *  * ]
I don't see why the images in the bas-reliefs have to be considered a helmet. These appear to be simple headbands to me, most likely made from woven materials and wrapped around the head. The additional vertical line extending down from them could easily be interpreted as the knot where they were tied, or excess material being stuffed through the band. In some images showing these bands, you can clearly see material extend beyond the circumference of the head behind the soldier's hair. They also vary in width and can be rather lop-sided on the head of the wearer. These are not qualities of a solid piece of material.

The protection offered by such a band of solid construction would be negligible, at best. The Assyrian Empire was rich and many of their soldiers are shown adorned with highly advanced lamellar and finely crafted, high-peaked helmets presumably of iron and bronze. Such "fillets" do not fit the bill among these fine tools of war.

-Gregory

Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mjbroyles
Member
[ * ]
Hello Gregory,

I agree that some of those figures are probably wearing cloth headbands, but there are several different headgear being demonstrated. The Assyrians seem to have two different styles, while their opponents in the lower register seem to have a third. The Assyrians in the lower relief are wearing different style headbands. The figure in the lower left armed with a sword and facing a horse certainly appears to have a different style than the archers more commonly shown in that relief. The first relief has what appears to be a third style.

As to the logic of the archer fillet. The archers were not intended as hand to hand combat soldiers. Not wearing a full helmet makes sense, but I agree that it could be non metallic, but that would offer even less protection than a bronze fillet. Since there are clearly different things being depicted in the same relief, let alone across reliefs, I think that bronze is a possibility. Metal is always thought of as higher status/desireability than leather/cloth. Since they definitely wore something, and appearently different styles of that something, I think that bronze is a reasonable possibility.

But what do you guys think?

Cordially,

MJB
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gregory J. Liebau
Fearless Leader
[ *  *  * ]
"The figure in the lower left armed with a sword and facing a horse certainly appears to have a different style than the archers more commonly shown in that relief. The first relief has what appears to be a third style."

I see only an artist's hand lightly chiseling out headbands that vary slightly in their depiction. I would not go so far as to say that any of these headbands are intentionally different to display distinct qualities of their real manifestation. It's taking the evidence way out of context and can lead to some real weird extrapolations. These guys either have headbands or helmets on their heads. Some of these headbands definitely have knots tied in the back of them. That is the most solid evidence we have regarding their construction - they were woven from cloth material and tied to secure them. That's really the only solid lead you have concerning the context of their construction... So that's the only one I'd consider logical to follow up on regarding reconstructing one.

As for the argument of practicality for archer's wearing some sort of fillet, I think your own conclusion pulls on the exact opposite of what seems logical. If archers were out of reach from hand-to-hand combat, a fillet would be absolutely useless. The only weapons they would typically have to fear are other archer's bows, and such a headpiece is extremely unlikely to protect you against an arrow considering the coverage it affords. The arc of a falling arrow is likely to smack you right on top of the head, or on the shoulders or down the front of your torso, legs and arms. A fillet would cover less than a tiny portion of the exposed area of an archer's body against such a threat. Honestly, the entire idea of this form of protection seems absurd to me. We see nothing else like it in the ancient world and there is no archeological evidence to support this reconstructive theory either as a protective or symbolic form of headgear.

-Gregory
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mjbroyles
Member
[ * ]
Gregory,

Why not "intentionally different to display distinct qualities of their real manifestation"? The reliefs are clearly demonstrating different styles of headgear. In the second one you uploaded (thank you very much) all of the foreign troops wear basically the same style of head gear. These certainly show what appears to be a knot at the back, and implies non metal material. On a couple it is possible that some sort of texture is indicated strengthening this material interpretation.

I would also argue that the presence of the knot on some is not the only detail we have to work with. If the presence of the knot is significant, than its absence must be just as significant. None of the Assyrians are depicted with a knot. If the knot indicates some soft material construction, then the lack of a knot would indicate something else, would it not?

Furthermore some of the fillets are depicted very rigidly, others are depicted very 'loosely'. These two depictions are consistant for the specific objects. The non Assyrians have loose fitting bands with knots. The Assyrians have either loose fitting bands without knots, or rigid fitting bands without knots. I see no possible interpretation for this consistancy except that three different styles of headgear are being represented.

Why would the relief clearly and repeatedly depict different things if the artist is not trying to depict different things?

We can argue forever about what the materials of construction were for these 'fillets'. However, that three different styles of 'fillets' are demonstrated in this relief is very clear.

Cordially,

Michael
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gregory J. Liebau
Fearless Leader
[ *  *  * ]
"However, that three different styles of 'fillets' are demonstrated in this relief is very clear. "

I disagree with this assessment. I see an artist(s) merely drawing headbands with minor nuances in their details. There's nothing that screams that some are rigid, some are loose and some are tied. They're all just showing headbands... It is far from being very clear that we are looking at distinctive headbands here. A two dimensional relief that was likely made by a team of artists working on a schedule hardly dictates that any minor details are meant to represent such distinctions. This is too small a body of evidence to make such conjecture as you're doing, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny to say that there are multiple styles of headband being shown here when in fact all we have are rather obscure linear depictions to work with.

In any case, you can disagree if you'd like. That's my assessment, and I find it much more reasonable than the extrapolation you're making based on the amount of evidence present. One can look at a piece of art and see lots of things they'd like to see, but the fact remains that there is nothing to support your conclusions beyond the simple differences between a few tiny, chiseled headbands on a piece of art dedicated to a successful military campaign, where such matters as headband designs most likely had little influence on the artist's interests.

-Gregory
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan Howard
Member Avatar
Patron
[ *  *  * ]
I was under the impression that the illustration in the first post was of an actual artefact. If it is not then I'd lean towards Greg's assessment. Personally I think it is a waste of time trying to use iconographical evidence alone to attempt a reconstruction of any kind. Get a hold of D'Amato's latest book on Roman equipment for a perfect example of this folly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jamie Szudy
Member Avatar
Member
[ * ]
I wander away from the board for a while, and of course that's when everyone starts to discuss my favorite ancient people... :D

Greg's got it right - these are, without exception, headbands. Not unlike a modern keffiya, it has obvious practical advantages, and also usually showed tribal affiliation by means of the patterns/colors of the fabric.

Officials and courtiers also wore them to denote their rank. Sometimes they are clearly shown with a knot at the back and the ends of the headband trailing behind, but sometimes the knot is not clearly seen. In any case, they are used in scenes where armor would be inappropriate, and sometimes even shown on the heads of captives, who would be completely disarmed.

In short, they are certainly fabric. Remember that in the ancient world, when designing protection, they usually worried foremost about things coming *down* at them (i.e. arrows, darts and javelins) than things coming at them horizontally. That's certainly the rationale behind the Assyrian conical helm, and the shoulder-doublings so evident on Greek and Roman armor. But a fillet-style helmet would leave the most vulnerable part (in their eyes) exposed.

We've found a lot of ancient near eastern helmets, and some of them are very unusual (like those that are bronze on one side and iron on the other), as well as many embossed bronze belts, but never a metal headband. You are quite right that in this period, bronze was a high-status decorative metal as well as a practical one, but when archers wanted to show off with some nice embossed bronze, they used bronze quivers (or bronze covers for leather quivers), a good number of which have also been found.

There are some interesting armor mysteries when it comes to ancient Assyria. I actually did a conference presentation on one of them, a sort of inside-out coat-of-plates which was designed to look like a popular style of garment...which made distinguishing it from that kind of garment VERY difficult...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Workman
Patron
[ *  *  * ]
Dan Howard,Oct 10 2010
09:52 PM
I was under the impression that the illustration in the first post was of an actual artefact. If it is not then I'd lean towards Greg's assessment. Personally I think it is a waste of time trying to use iconographical evidence alone to attempt a reconstruction of any kind. Get a hold of D'Amato's latest book on Roman equipment for a perfect example of this folly.

I haven't seen it, what did D'amato do wrong in the book? I'm just curious, since I am a big Osprey buyer, if it is indeed an Osprey title.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luciën Olinga
Member Avatar
1/12 scale statue man
[ *  *  * ]
Off course you guys all know I once made an Assyrian warriorstatue..
With a bronze helmet.. (guilded later on for a better but rather more 'artistic' result)
I remember I came accross a whole bunch of Assyrian helmets, all drawn like the first one M.J. Broyles showed us on 'flickr'.. but I can't remember where I have the files of those..
So all I can do is post a close-up picture of the bronze scale-model helmet I casted back in the day's.. ;)
All I know is that it was pretty much an exact match with the drawing.. but the mould didn't exactly fill up.. :angry: so I shaped the backside a little different..

Greetings,

Luciën..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Near Eastern Studies · Next Topic »
Add Reply