Iron helmet from Iran

erlikhan · 28th February 2005, 10:35 PM

this is a helmet from Iran standing on my percussion rifle. beautifully hand chiselled iron and gold-silver koftgari. chain protection is the most elegant and stylish I have ever seen. can anybody guess from which century it is?

http://www.pbase.com/erlik35/inbox

regards

B.I · 28th February 2005, 11:08 PM

i would say it was persian, 19thC. later quajar period. the foral design is interesting and uncommon. the decoration seems chisselled, but heavily cleaned. it has the softer feeling of etching but is a little too deep, as if the hard lines have been over-cleaned. the nasal bar could possible be a replacemet. maybe still 19thC, but from a different helmet. the design is right, but the chisselling is light and not en suite. the camail has patterened brass links, interspersed with steel links. probably butted, as this type of helmet normally held.
the bowl is normally of one piece contruction, and relatively light (half the weight of a 17thC helmet). this donates a decorative use. they were made as wall hangings and bought brand new in the bazaars during the 19thC. this assessment is based on many i have seen, of the same form, and so am assuming this is the case with yours. i have a few of very similar form.
a nice piece and they look great mounted. commercial aspect depends solely on the quality of the chisselling and amount and quality of the goldwork, which vary from crude to absolutely stunning. just an opinion.

erlikhan · 28th February 2005, 11:26 PM

B.I, thanks for the information. it is not mine yet . there are faint gold koftgari remains on the nasal bar, and its decoration is the same style with its spike. because of these, i think it must be original. i would like to see pictures of yours, if you have very similar ones. i have heard that, to compare high quality helmets or shields between each other, gold koftgari is not so difficult or expensive, you can even cover all helmet or shield with koftgari if you wish, but a good quality iron chiselling is more desicive about value as it is a more difficult kind of art and was hard and expensive in past too. and can you estimate price? you can send private message for that.
regards

Conogre · 1st March 2005, 02:24 AM

Somehow I think I could force myself to accept one of these, even with all of the negative aspects!
To my poor old untrained western eye it's simply beautiful.
For that type of skill and artistry to be considered less is completely beyond my ability to comprehend.
Mike

B.I · 1st March 2005, 08:28 AM

erlikhan,
i've sent you a PM.

Ann Feuerbach · 3rd March 2005, 02:34 AM

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

Aqtai · 19th May 2005, 11:11 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, 01:04 PM

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

Aqtai · 23rd May 2005, 02:04 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, 01:17 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:

28th February 2005, 10:35 PM	#1
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	Iron helmet from Iran this is a helmet from Iran standing on my percussion rifle. beautifully hand chiselled iron and gold-silver koftgari. chain protection is the most elegant and stylish I have ever seen. can anybody guess from which century it is? http://www.pbase.com/erlik35/inbox regards

28th February 2005, 11:26 PM	#3
erlikhan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Istanbul Posts: 452	B.I, thanks for the information. it is not mine yet . there are faint gold koftgari remains on the nasal bar, and its decoration is the same style with its spike. because of these, i think it must be original. i would like to see pictures of yours, if you have very similar ones. i have heard that, to compare high quality helmets or shields between each other, gold koftgari is not so difficult or expensive, you can even cover all helmet or shield with koftgari if you wish, but a good quality iron chiselling is more desicive about value as it is a more difficult kind of art and was hard and expensive in past too. and can you estimate price? you can send private message for that. regards Last edited by erlikhan; 1st March 2005 at 12:25 PM.

28th February 2005, 11:08 PM	#2
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i would say it was persian, 19thC. later quajar period. the foral design is interesting and uncommon. the decoration seems chisselled, but heavily cleaned. it has the softer feeling of etching but is a little too deep, as if the hard lines have been over-cleaned. the nasal bar could possible be a replacemet. maybe still 19thC, but from a different helmet. the design is right, but the chisselling is light and not en suite. the camail has patterened brass links, interspersed with steel links. probably butted, as this type of helmet normally held. the bowl is normally of one piece contruction, and relatively light (half the weight of a 17thC helmet). this donates a decorative use. they were made as wall hangings and bought brand new in the bazaars during the 19thC. this assessment is based on many i have seen, of the same form, and so am assuming this is the case with yours. i have a few of very similar form. a nice piece and they look great mounted. commercial aspect depends solely on the quality of the chisselling and amount and quality of the goldwork, which vary from crude to absolutely stunning. just an opinion.

1st March 2005, 02:24 AM	#4
Conogre Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Clearwater, Florida Posts: 371	Somehow I think I could force myself to accept one of these, even with all of the negative aspects! To my poor old untrained western eye it's simply beautiful. For that type of skill and artistry to be considered less is completely beyond my ability to comprehend. Mike

1st March 2005, 08:28 AM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	erlikhan, i've sent you a PM.

3rd March 2005, 02:34 AM	#6
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Nice piece..here's my 2 cents..late Safavid?

19th May 2005, 11:11 AM	#7
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, 01:04 PM	#8
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, 02:04 PM	#9
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, 01:17 PM	#10
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: