Iron helmet from Iran

B.I · 1st March 2005, 07:28 AM

erlikhan,
i've sent you a PM.

Ann Feuerbach · 3rd March 2005, 01:34 AM

Nice piece..here's my 2 cents..late Safavid?

Aqtai · 19th May 2005, 10:11 AM

According to my George C. Stones' 'A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and in All Times', that is a kulah khud.

I also remember reading somewhere that early examples have a deep bowl, whereas later versions from the 18th and 19th centuries have a shallow bowl. I have seen pictures of helmets attributed to Shah Tahmasp and Shah Abbas I which have quite deep bowls. I have also seen one attributed to Fath Ali Shah, dated 1227 H. (1812 AD) with a shallow bowl.

I have noticed that a lot of helmets available on the Internet also have shallow bowls, but this could be because they are Indian rather than Iranian.

I'll see if I can find those pictures.

erlikhan · 23rd May 2005, 12:04 PM

Aqtai, so which type is this one closer to? shallow or deep?

Aqtai · 23rd May 2005, 01:04 PM

I would say that is a deep bowl, however the depth of the bowl is unreliable anyway as I have recently seen pictures of 19th century Iranian kulah khud's with quite deep bowls. I think in retrospect shallow and deep bowls is more likely to be due to regional differences.

Another thing I have read is with regards to the mail camail. Earlier mail i.e. pre-18th century was invariably rivetted, but after 1700 most camails were made with fine butted mail links. the butted mail offers less protection, but, looks better visually and is easier to make.

Apart from that, you'll need someone who knows more about Iranian metalwork.

Aqtai · 4th June 2005, 12:17 PM

Just a little update on the rivetted mail/butted mail thing. This picture is from H. R. Robinson's Oriental Armour:

And this is where I got the misconception about deep and shallow bows from:

1st March 2005, 07:28 AM	#1
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	erlikhan, i've sent you a PM.

3rd March 2005, 01:34 AM	#2
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Nice piece..here's my 2 cents..late Safavid?

19th May 2005, 10:11 AM	#3
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	According to my George C. Stones' 'A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and in All Times', that is a kulah khud. I also remember reading somewhere that early examples have a deep bowl, whereas later versions from the 18th and 19th centuries have a shallow bowl. I have seen pictures of helmets attributed to Shah Tahmasp and Shah Abbas I which have quite deep bowls. I have also seen one attributed to Fath Ali Shah, dated 1227 H. (1812 AD) with a shallow bowl. I have noticed that a lot of helmets available on the Internet also have shallow bowls, but this could be because they are Indian rather than Iranian. I'll see if I can find those pictures.

23rd May 2005, 12:04 PM	#4
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Aqtai, so which type is this one closer to? shallow or deep?

23rd May 2005, 01:04 PM	#5
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	I would say that is a deep bowl, however the depth of the bowl is unreliable anyway as I have recently seen pictures of 19th century Iranian kulah khud's with quite deep bowls. I think in retrospect shallow and deep bowls is more likely to be due to regional differences. Another thing I have read is with regards to the mail camail. Earlier mail i.e. pre-18th century was invariably rivetted, but after 1700 most camails were made with fine butted mail links. the butted mail offers less protection, but, looks better visually and is easier to make. Apart from that, you'll need someone who knows more about Iranian metalwork.

4th June 2005, 12:17 PM	#6
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Just a little update on the rivetted mail/butted mail thing. This picture is from H. R. Robinson's Oriental Armour: And this is where I got the misconception about deep and shallow bows from: