kulah khud for comment

Aqtai · 11th April 2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by domayeux

Hi
just to put in comparison

I believe that one really Kadjar, not only because is mine

I'm using it as "avatar", but it's not only a picture

Dom, that is a gorgeous helmet, I'm feeling quite envious now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee

Received by e-mail from forum lurker Steve:

I am not a member, but came to the "Kulah Khud" Helmet, and use to have one almost like it. An archeologist from Oklahoma, thought this type of Helmet was from the Moors, or Turkish, dating back to 1100 or 1200 AD. ?? My Helmet was really close to this one. Except my Helmet was all engraved on top, with silver enlay. It was also rusted from being buried. And the chain mail was still in tact. I hope this has been a little help. Thanks

That is interesting Lee, I have few "buts" though.

If those dates are right that is one of the oldest "kulah khud" type helmets I have ever heard of. As far as I know the earliest "kulah khuds" date from the early 16th century AD. It's possible that Steve means 1100 or 1200 AH or Hijri, which would make that helmet about 200-300 years old which is far more plausible.

With regards to the provenance, the kulah khud style is of Iranian origin although it was also used in India and the Caucasus, in the 15th, 16th and early 17th centuries the Ottoman Turks and Mamluks of Egypt (as well as the Russians and Poles) used chichak helmets. In the late 17th century though the Ottomans do seem to have abandonned the chichak and adopted the kulah khud. BTW in the 15th century a variant of the chichak without the peak (brow guard) was also used in Iran and India.

By Moorish do you mean North African or Andalucian? The reason I ask is because I know nothing about North African armour, but I do know that Andalucian Arabs used European style helmets like the sallet and celata (barbute). There is a very fine example of a Moorish sallet on theMetropolitan Musem website:
http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Ar...&item=1983.413

B.I · 11th April 2006, 10:00 PM

hi aqtai,
i wouldnt take the archaeologists comment too seriously until an image is shown. i feel there is a strong possibility of generic terms being used (as in 'saracenic' used throughout 19th/20thC for anything oriental).
both moor and turkish are loose forms of 'saracenic' and so are a basic descriptive term for anything non-european. i may be doing him an injustice, and he may well be right. but, as you know a 11th/12thC 'islamic' helmet from either north africa, turkic lands or andalucia would look nothing like the post's original kulah khud.
i do hope the said helmet is shown for us to discuss.
btw, that helmet from the met (nasrid) caused much controversy when it was purchased. not sure the jury is quite out on it as yet.

11th April 2006, 10:00 PM	#2
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi aqtai, i wouldnt take the archaeologists comment too seriously until an image is shown. i feel there is a strong possibility of generic terms being used (as in 'saracenic' used throughout 19th/20thC for anything oriental). both moor and turkish are loose forms of 'saracenic' and so are a basic descriptive term for anything non-european. i may be doing him an injustice, and he may well be right. but, as you know a 11th/12thC 'islamic' helmet from either north africa, turkic lands or andalucia would look nothing like the post's original kulah khud. i do hope the said helmet is shown for us to discuss. btw, that helmet from the met (nasrid) caused much controversy when it was purchased. not sure the jury is quite out on it as yet.