I agree with these excellent and well placed observations, that direct influence from Greek helmets with facial guard is unlikely for 17th-19th c. Sind examples. I think what is interesting is the concept of facial guard, especially those with anthromorphic or grotesque embellishment. I also agree with the idea of psychological effect, which is always a fascinating topic in the study of ethnographic weapons. As Tom has well described, the very impersonal, and often virtually inhuman, effect created by removing the 'humanity' of the human face is disturbing in itself. Therefore the concept of the hidden face is equally a purpose along with protection from wounds with these faceguards.
The acknowledging of early attention to protecting the face, as well as the frightening inanimate and often grotesque featured mask, is simply referencing not necessarily congruent use of this concept. It is often difficult to find exact source of influence for motif or style in arms and armor, but degree of plausibility increases as more examples are discovered and with the good fortune of dated provenance, a chronology develops.
The Sind helmet is particularly fascinating because of its similarity in concept, not necessarily exact form or construction, to these early forms with facial protection.
Outstanding observations gentlemen! Lets keep looking OK.
Any other helmets in the Persian, Indian subcontinent with facial guards that comprise a solid mask?
Best regards,
Jim
|