Looks real nice and it must be a blast to be access some of the talent and reference material that exists in Europe that we can only droll over on this side of the Atlantic.

Well, the Gjermundbu helmet was found in a tomb hill in norway. If you look at an analsysis of the thing, you'll notice it is more or less senseless to use that in real battle- the skull plates are simply too thin, not hardened in any way, and generally of very low quality. Which makes it for me a funeral helmet. What's more, there are no other hints (at least io know of none) such helmets were ever worn by the wikings- unlike for instance conical helmets with a noseguard.

Could the thinness be from rust, and couldn't the ill tempering be due to time period? Many pieces of armor weren't even tempered in the 14th century, would surprise that vikings didn't temper all of theirs.

Additionally, why make a funeral helm that wasn't based on some real life version? That would be like inventing a new helmet just to bury people in.

A bit of thread Necro - I came across this searching for something else and thought it deserved a reply:

Jens Boerner wrote:

And just a side point: there is no such think as a "spectacled viking helm". The very few spectacled helmets are either funeral helmets, or not viking, or both. I know of no prove whatsoever that vikings ever wore such helmets. Apart form the fact only very very few persons during the viking era were wealthy enough to own any. So such a problem like that with the arrow simply would not have occured.

For starters, it should be pointed out that there is no proof whatsoever that the Vikings did not wear such helmets. Evidence of pretty much anything from this period is usually highly fragmentary and sporadic. It is both disingenuous and dangerous to make sweeping statements one way or the other. The most one can say is that at some point in the middle or late Viking Age conical type helmets, such as the St. Wenceslaus, became the norm. What was worn before that period is not terribly clear, but the Gjermundbu and Vendel finds are likely close to the truth.

And actually there IS clear evidence for spectacled Viking helms, specifically the Tjele fragment, which upon examination was quite likely similar in general form to the Gjermundbu spectacle when it was new (judging from the rivet holes, it is fairly certain to me at least that there were "curved linking strips" very like that on the Gjermundbu that would have completed the appearance). This was found as part of a collection of smith's tools (not a tomb or burial find), and dates from the last half of the 10th century.

Jens Boerner wrote:

Well, the Gjermundbu helmet was found in a tomb hill in norway. If you look at an analsysis of the thing, you'll notice it is more or less senseless to use that in real battle- the skull plates are simply too thin, not hardened in any way, and generally of very low quality. Which makes it for me a funeral helmet. What's more, there are no other hints (at least io know of none) such helmets were ever worn by the wikings- unlike for instance conical helmets with a noseguard.

These are specious arguments. (1) since only ~25% or so of the helmet even survives, obviously there has been significant losses due to corrosion; in any case, define "too thin" - what one imagines as "too thin" may well be perfectly adequate. Keep in mind that elements of surviving medieval and ancient armor can be less than 1mm in places. Going further, the "spectacle eyeguard" is VERY thick - about 3mm or so, judging from the pix I've seen. Anyone believing that is too thin knows nothing of actual medieval armor (2) the earliest hardened piece of armor is the Dargen helm dated to c. 1275 A.D. or so, before that there is no evidence that I know of for hardening. The Coppergate helmet was not hardened, but no one has suggested that it is "ceremonial" or "sepulchral" in nature. Even the Romans did not harden their armor, and it seemed to work just fine for them. (3) the whole concept of a "funeral helmet" does not seem tenable. Yes, there are references to special funeral clothing being made for the deceased, but to stretch that to include helmets is absurd. For one thing, no saga evidence supports this. For another, if one is going to insist that helmets were only specially made for burials, than what of the sword and mail found at this site, or swords, spears, axes found in burial sites all over Scandinavia and Viking Age settlements elsewhere (England, etc.)? It's all or nothing - either every weapon, helmet, etc. was specially made for the burial, or none of it was. I very much doubt a rational case can be made for asserting every single sword, axe, etc. found in burials (including myriad obviously lower class graves) was purely ceremonial. Certainly would have been quite an industry if it were!

Michael Curl wrote:

Could the thinness be from rust, and couldn't the ill tempering be due to time period? Many pieces of armor weren't even tempered in the 14th century, would surprise that vikings didn't temper all of theirs. Additionally, why make a funeral helm that wasn't based on some real life version? That would be like inventing a new helmet just to bury people in.

Very valid observations. I find most compelling the observation about the funeral helmet being different from the real life versions - obviously they would have looked the same as whatever was worn in battle at the time. It is to be noted that the special "funeral clothes" mentioned in the sagas were special because of their color (dark blue/black) but had the same form as any other clothing worn in the period. No attempt was made to imitate the "tradition of the ancestors" or any other such strange theory for which we otherwise have no evidence whatsoever.

Jens Boerner wrote:

No, since you can compare any thickness loss to the other parts of the helmet. Unfortunatly I've got no number at hand, but you would never wanna wear a 1:1 copy of the helmet because of savety reasons; the helmet would, according to someone who had his hands on it "not survive a fall from 1,5 metres height.". All "reproductions" I know also are a lot thicker, if even similar to the original one. Most helmets outside there refering t the Gjermundbu helmet simply do onyl have the general shape in common. In fact the helmet is in general look similar to the helmets of the "vendelzeit" (sweden between ca. 550 and 800, pre-viking so to speak), however, has a completly different construction. So the most-up-to-date interpretation is, as far as I know, that the helmet is a funeral helmet in the "tradition of the ancestors". But no helmet a viking would have worn in batlle.

Unless one has a secret Time Machine at one's disposal, there is no basis for asserting that it is "...no helmet a viking would have worn in batlle[sic]" - in truth, we simply do not know and have no way of really knowing for sure. Regarding claims that such a helmet could not survive a 1.5m fall strike me as absurd, since unless it is of foil thickness it would survive quite handily. As a point of fact, the complex nature of the construction actually promotes a great deal of durability - note that the "sandwich" nature of the ribs means that you have three layers - the inner nose to nape and ear to ear bands, the overlapped infill panels, and the outer ribbed over-plates, resulting in a substantial amount of metal to try to chop through. The browband features a coorogated rib, as well, which again promotes rigidity and strength. As noted previously, the spectacle is about 3mm or so, very heavy duty. Point being that the helmet would be quite effective against the main threat it would face - slashing/shearing blows from swords and axes - with other threats (spear thrusts, arrows, and similar) being handled by means of a shield and (if available) body armor. From an engineering standpoint, the Gjermundbu helmet is reinforced in precisely the places it would need to be to meet the sword/axe threat, while other less vital areas that do not need reinforcement are left thin, keeping the overall helmet light in weight. Minimizing weight where it is not needed while keeping protection where it is most needed is a well-established design principle, amply demonstrated in period armor and still used today. Taken as a whole there is no reason at present to assume that it would not function in battle - and there is plenty of hard engineering evidence that proves it would work just fine.

And if one were really to make a helmet fit only as a token for burial, I can't imagine why so much effort (and believe me, having made a reproduction of this helmet it IS a lot of effort) would be put into construction details that would only make sense in the context of trying to reinforce the helmet for actual combat. So far as I'm concerned, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are it’s a duck. Likewise, if a helmet is designed in such manner as to defend against the specific threats it would meet and is reinforced in precisely such manner as to achieve that defense, then, logically, it is a combat capable piece of armor.

Sure, anything is possible, but in the end I'm going to defer to Occam's Razor to dispense with spurious arguments that lack evidence of any kind to back them up. The problem here is that Jens is making an extraordinary claim - that the Gjermundbu helmet was built for the sole purpose of burial and was unfit for combat. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, in the form of hard evidence such as extensive micrometer thickness readings, period artwork, saga citations, etc. Handwavy claims that the plates are "too thin" and that the alleged burial token is "in the tradition of the ancestors" fall far short of this standard, and may be dismissed without further consideration.