A New Helmet

[Nathan Ross]

He may be referring to the second of the two helmets in Christian's post of about three weeks ago.

Ah yes, that would make sense - it does appear to be the Gallic H...

My apologies, Brian; I was referring to the three pictures I linked in my own post above!

[PhilusEstilius]

That's no problem at all Nathan I forgot to mention I was referring to the two pictures up that page.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Robinsons informations were not correct. The Lech is the Local river, but the helmet and the other more than 10.000 objects from the Augustan period were found in Augsburg-Oberhausen, near the river Wertach, where possibly once the Wertach and the Lech met. Since all these objects are clearly augustan, it seems plausible that the helmet is augustan, too.

[PhilusEstilius]

Christian.
I think that Robinson does tend to cause a bit of confusion at times with some of his information and also his typology with regards to some helmets, in fact since he put together what he did there is so much more information to now be taken into account and with this quote from his book just shows how much miss information can be given out.

[Crispvs]

Thanks Christian for the probable deposition dates. With regard to the Imperial Gallic 'H' though, while it could well be true that it was manufactured before AD16, helmets apparently of that type were still in use as late the Iceni revolt in AD60/61 as the fragments from Colchester Sheepen show.

With regard to the use of an Imperial Gallic 'H' by a soldier on Hadrian's wall, it is of course possible that a helmet which was well over a hundred years old might still have been in use, but if so it would definitely look as though it was that old. It would be dented; the cheek guards would almost certainly be replacements; the peak would probably have been replaced at least once; it would probably have had crossed reinforcing bars retro-fitted to its skull; there would possibly be serious rust damage on parts of the helmet which were difficult to clean, such as behind the peak or brow band; and most of the red enamel you like so much would have been knocked out years before, leaving only the occasional coloured fragment. It might still be serviceable, but it would look a pretty sorry sight to the modern eye.

If you want your kit to look nice and shiny, I would avoid that helmet and go instead for something like either the Imperial Italic 'G' from Hebron (for something 'new' looking), or the Imperial Gallic 'J' from Brigetio (for something that might have been around for a couple of decades already). If you wanted to go for other earlier helmet types, the same rules apply as to the Gallic 'H'. The Imperial Gallic 'F' from Bescancion, for example, was deposited between AD48 and 52.

Crispvs

[Sextus Saturninus]

Well I found this helmet and I thought it looked cool. I am guessing it has an early date based on the eyebrows. Any date on this helmet? I could only find that it is in the Nijmegen museum and that it was a Weisenau helmet.

[Sextus Saturninus]

What about the dating on this helmet? It has some silver gilting and looks to be a Gallic helmet. It is a Weisenau and is displayed at the Vindonissa Musuem.

[Nathan Ross]

What about the dating on this helmet?

That, I think, is the Vindonissa helmet, found in 1979, no Robinson classification but close enough to the Sisak and Besancon helmets (the latter mentioned by Crispus above) to share the 'Gallic F' bracket, and the same sort of mid-1st-C dating.

Incidentally, does anyone have a theory about why so many extant Roman (infantry) helmets seem to date from the middle years of the 1st Century AD? There seem to be scores of them, compared to, for example, only one from the entire first three quarters of the second century (and even that one - the Hebron helmet - is a bit of a guess...)

[caiusbeerquitius]

It is strange indeed. I would date the Krefeld-type decorated helmets after the Dacian wars - the cross-bands getting back to a mere decorative element, and I rather see the Niedermörmters as direct follow-ups of these, and see the Niedermörmters as rather later second century than third century. gives us a few more helmets for the 2nd century. Generally the whole date-by-evolution thing is rather difficult IMO. So, many helmets we know date earlier or later than we originally thought. the helmets without archaeological context get dated by comparison, which may be utterly wrong, though.

[Crispvs]

Actually, there are at least three more helmets dating to the first three quarters of the second century AD. There is Robinson's Imperial Gallic type 'K', the Bersobis helmet, and the flattened crown of a helmet which may have been similar to the Hebron helmet in the museum at Vindolanda (anonymously identified on the cabinet as a "fragment of iron plate with copper-alloy decoration"). It is in a cabinet containing other bits of iron plate but is identifiable from the spacing of the one complete and one fragmentary 'lunar' decorations.

Still, four is not that much more than one, so the question of numbers still stands.
The theory I like best is that many depositions may have been connected with the contractual nature of Roman religion - for example: 'If You, Silvanus, protect me in the coming campaign, then I will sacrifice the helmet which You protected me with back to You following my safe return. That's the deal I want to make with You'.
The period from the late first century BC to the mid first century AD saw the Romans conducting a great deal of warfare, so such dedications may have been common during the period. By the time of the next phase of widespread warfare, dedicatory practices may have changed in favour of (for example) dedicating altars upon safely returning.

Then again some dedicatory practices may have reflected the culture of particular units. Has anyone ever done a study to see if there is any correlation between unit placements and helmet finds?

Another possibility (for some at least) might be that they were in need of repair ( missing or damaged cheek guard needing to be replaced, for example) and when a unit moved on to its next location there was too much accumulated material to carry so damaged items were buried rather than add extra weight to the unit's baggage, just like the nails at Inchtuthil. Perhaps units moved their bases less frequently during the first half of the second century AD, so did not bury things in the same way nearly as often, due to having the opportunity to repair or recycle them.

Crispvs

[Crispvs]

Sorry Christian, we 'crossed in the post', as they say.

Crispvs

[Sextus Saturninus]

Could anyone please post a picture of the Gallic K and the Bersobis helmet? I did not know the Gallic series had a helmet from the second century. I would love to see a pic.

[Nathan Ross]

I would date the Krefeld-type decorated helmets after the Dacian wars... Generally the whole date-by-evolution thing is rather difficult IMO

I know this has been debated often before - there's an interesting old post here from Rob Wolters arguing for a redate of the Italic E (Hofheim) to cAD121. However, see also Jens Horskotte's post from further down that page, suggesting an AD69 date for the Krefeld Italic D...

These Italic D/Es do look quite 2nd century, but mainly due to similarity with the Niedermörmter - for which we have, as far as I know, no confirmed date...

Robinson's Imperial Gallic type 'K'

Ah yes, there's a post about it, with pic, from Cohors II Praetoria on Facebook. Looks very much like the Brigetio 'J'. However, in the notes we have this: "more recent studies, given the archaeological context in which the helmet was found, which is a pit in the fort of Wiesbaden in Germany, suggest a slightly earlier date, necessarily including between 68 and 89 AD." So we're back to the 1st century again with that one... :unsure:

I wonder how much of our accepted helmet chronology is based on the idea that cross bracing was first adopted during the Dacian Wars of Trajan, as a 'response' to the falx? (people used to say the same thing about manicae, of course...)

Perhaps units moved their bases less frequently during the first half of the second century AD

Yes, I wondered that. Legions in less permanent camps might have been more inclined to dump old bits of kit more often. A large number of the more datable finds seem to relate to legions abandoning or moving camp.

[Crispvs]

I don't have Robinson to hand right now but I recall there being a 'lunar' decoration surviving on the crown, which led Robinson to surmise that it had originally been cross-braced and must therefore be close to the Hebron helmet in date. It was in a heavily rusted and unrestored state in the picture Robinson was sent and reproduced, so detailed examination was not possible.

EDIT: I've just had a look at the link you posted Nathan. The helmet has evidently been cleaned up somewhat since 1975. I can see a hole in a position which would be appropriate for a cross-brace, but it could equally well be for the flange of the missing ear guard. Without views of the back and the other side it would be impossible to know. It occurs to me too, that the idea that 'lunar' decorations were introduced to helmets in response to cross-bracing is simply an assumption. It is equally possible that they were already in use as decorations and just happened to fit well with the cross-bracing which later appeared on helmets.

Crispvs

[Nathan Ross]

The helmet has evidently been cleaned up somewhat since 1975.

Yes, and the 'decoration' is clear, although, again from the accompanying notes to that page: "the students come to the conclusion that this is not a decoration but merely a repair." Sadly, there are no notes for these notes (!), so I'm not sure where this information is drawn from.