Helms with cheek plates

[Eltz-Kempenich]

Hello! There was a thread some time ago about helms with cheek plates and the author wanted to know why they disappeared. I'm going to embark on a short research project to find out! Or at least confirm/debunk my theory. To do this, I need to look at lots of examples of post-Roman helms with cheek plates, or even more generally, European helms from ~500-900, regardless of the cheek plates.

So, I am here to ask for a bit of help. I basically am asking that anyone and everyone that can think of examples of helms from this era to share with me the name of the object (like 'coppergate helm') and perhaps where I can track downs pics and info on it. I know there are a bunch of helms from this period floating around, but I don't really know where to begin to track them all down. There really isn't an effective way to search for them based on these criteria. So I figured if you fine folks have a spare moment, you could give me a few leads.

And don't worry, I'm doing all the heavy lifting in tracking down the written sources I need.

Thanks!

[Len Parker]

http://asgard.tgorod.ru/libri.php3?cont=_vendel1 In Russian, but here they are. More helmets at bottom links. Also some good pictures of the pioneer helmet. http://www.tforum.info/forum/index.php?showtopic=31209&st=20

[Matthew Amt]

Here's the thread:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=137658

The original topic seemed to be mainly focused on Norman-conquest-era helmets, for instance late Saxon and Norman artwork such as the Bayeux Tapestry. Nary a cheekpiece to be seen. Same with the (admittedly not numerous) surviving examples. Compared to all the cheekpieces from a century or two before that, it is indeed curious! But I'm sure you can find examples of cheekpieces from various places all through that era, so the lack of them may have been a more localized fashion than we think. Dunno!

Happy hunting!

Matthew

[chef de chambre]

You should look at all the evidence you can find, THEN create a theory, not begin with a theory and look at the evidence to see how it fits.

[chef de chambre]

...Oh, and the evidence should not be purely visual, you need to look at documentary evidence as well, of you really want to have a viable theory.

[Gerhard von Liebau]

You should look at all the evidence you can find, THEN create a theory, not begin with a theory and look at the evidence to see how it fits.

Ditto on that - I'm sure you know the drill, Eltz. But I'm definitely with Chef in encouraging you to pull away from your theory while dissecting the evidence! Always leads to a more honest conclusion. Good luck!

-Gerhard

[Eltz-Kempenich]

Two things, Chef. First, reread my post: "And don't worry, I'm doing all the heavy lifting in tracking down the written sources I need." I am aware of the need for written sources so I needn't belabor the point. Secondly, yes, I generally agree that one ought to look at the evidence before coming to a conclusion, but that isn't always the best approach. It is not unreasonable to begin with a hypothesis to test (which is how almost all hard and soft sciences alike begin anyway, including history), one must be more keenly aware of the biases in play. Especially for such an esoteric topic, there is not going to be a lot, if any, written material on the subject. My written evidence at best will be circumstantial and for the helms proper, it is largely the date that concerns me. I strongly suspect that there are very few helms with cheek plates that appear after 800ce for reasons having to do with Charlemagne and the HRE.

[Gerhard von Liebau]

I also wouldn't discount the use of coifs and aventails as a major player in this evolution.

-Gerhard

[RandallMoffett]

Maybe it got in the way when eating on the march....

[chef de chambre]

Two things, Chef. First, reread my post: "And don't worry, I'm doing all the heavy lifting in tracking down the written sources I need." I am aware of the need for written sources so I needn't belabor the point. Secondly, yes, I generally agree that one ought to look at the evidence before coming to a conclusion, but that isn't always the best approach. It is not unreasonable to begin with a hypothesis to test (which is how almost all hard and soft sciences alike begin anyway, including history), one must be more keenly aware of the biases in play. Especially for such an esoteric topic, there is not going to be a lot, if any, written material on the subject. My written evidence at best will be circumstantial and for the helms proper, it is largely the date that concerns me. I strongly suspect that there are very few helms with cheek plates that appear after 800ce for reasons having to do with Charlemagne and the HRE.

Good for you for being willing to look to documentary evidence. Most people aren't, who are in 'the hobby'

That said, I don't think your analysis of begining with a theory (hypothisis), then examining the evidence is sound regarding history. It isn't what I was taught when I was in school, which wasn't all that long ago.

[RevBigEars]

Good luck Eltz-K with a difficult project. Researching one example is tricky enough, trying to understand enough examples to point to a trend is even more difficult, and then trying to explain the reason for that trend can border on impossible, depending on the availability of evidence.

I will say that looking at the evidence before coming to a conclusion is always the best approach. Having an idea (not a 'theory', that word carries weight, respect it!) and then gathering evidence to test that idea(hypothesis) against, is hands down the best way to then form a conclusion.

The scientific method applies to all things, including history, when its properly followed. So do remember that initial ideas are not sacred and must be discarded when they no longer are the best explanation of facts.

[Eltz-Kempenich]

I agree with what you both, Chef and BigEars, say. I did not use the precise language that I perhaps ought to have. This is a pretty informal setting and did not judiciously consider my wording as I might have otherwise in a more professional setting. Yes, I am beginning with a hypothesis and will consider the evidence to either confirm or disprove this hypothesis. If I have to reject my hypothesis, so be it.

The hypothesis is, vaguely, that cheek plates disappear from helms about the time the HRE is established as a formally governed territory as a result of Carolingian capitularies requiring specific armours for soldiers and usurpation of the barbarian armouring traditions by HRE armourers (producing munitions work to meet these requirements) across this broad territory.

These ideas are informed hunches, and I'll see how they fit with what evidence I can find.

[Gerhard von Liebau]

The hypothesis is, vaguely, that cheek plates disappear from helms about the time the HRE is established as a formally governed territory as a result of Carolingian capitularies requiring specific armours for soldiers and usurpation of the barbarian armouring traditions by HRE armourers (producing munitions work to meet these requirements) across this broad territory.

I don't know what type of evidence you're using, that that seems like a rather wild hypothesis given the type of data generally available from the era.

[Eltz-Kempenich]

Yeah, I kinda feel the same way. I may not end up finding sufficient evidence to make any strong claim at all as to why they disappear. My brief survey of helms has revealed that cheek plates do generally disappear by about 800, though. In the end, I think the hypothesis will only remain plausible conjecture, which really isn't much to write about. But I'll still look and see what I can find in the written sources. Thankfully, Charlemagne at least was a crazy bureaucrat with everything written up in triplicate.

[Destichado]

Yeah, I don't think that's a supportable hypothesis, either.

This brings to mind the case of that one archaeologist who invented stories about an elaborate earth-mother cult and matriarchal society, all built around a handful of pot shards and a crude figurine. Yes, it is a conjecture *allowed* by the evidence, but that is very different than being *supported* by the evidence.

[Ernst]

The hypothesis is, vaguely, that cheek plates disappear from helms about the time the HRE is established as a formally governed territory as a result of Carolingian capitularies requiring specific armours for soldiers and usurpation of the barbarian armouring traditions by HRE armourers (producing munitions work to meet these requirements) across this broad territory.

I don't know what type of evidence you're using, that that seems like a rather wild hypothesis given the type of data generally available from the era.

What to do with the chess-knight from the Isle of Lewis?
http://www.nms.ac.uk/images/chessmen_ki ... _570px.jpg

[Eltz-Kempenich]

I'm beginning to think that there may be more to this than I initially thought. The bit of digging I've done, at least presently, indicates that there is indeed a geographic distinction to be made. Some late Roman helms and certainly those in the early HRE lack cheek plates, whereas helms in Scandinavia and England seem to maintain them. This whole era is outside of my general expertise, though, so I might set this project aside for the moment in favor of studying Edward III's shield. I don't have the time right now to devote to seriously start digging into material I'm not familiar with. I'd rather go with something more familiar for the nonce. But all the same, I'll be saving reference material as I come across it.

[RandallMoffett]

Keith,

That is where I would start with such a project. Find possible examples and start with late Rome on.

RPM