Hi all!
After shamelessly hijacking the thread concerning Deepeeka´s improvement on their late roman swords, I decided to start a new thread about the dating of the late roman helmets.
I will try to reconstruct a timeline when these helmets probably were in use. I will depict this broad outline with the help of some of the most famous finds concerning late roman helmets (based on Bishop & Coulston, James, Klumbach, Miks, Travis etc.) I would also like to hear your opinions on this. I will start at the end of the 3th c. AD.
-280-320 AD: Deir el Medineh helmet & Oudheden, Leiden spangenhelm.
-300-400 AD: Berkasovo, Deurne, Budapest, Augsburg-Pfrsee, Burgh castle, Heteny helmet (mainly stretching the timeline to 400 AD
-400-450 AD: Concesti helmet.
-300-500 AD: Intercisa style helmets, Richborough helmets (the long continued use is based on the pictorial evidence on mosaics etc.)
-400-600 AD: spangenhelms like Baldenheim etc.
I know this is a controversial subject but are the basic elements right and have I missed something important?
Well, don't forget the crossovers between the Intercisa-Type and Berkasova-Type constructions, such as the Iatrus helmet.
Quote:Well, don't forget the crossovers between the Intercisa-Type and Berkasova-Type constructions, such as the Iatrus helmet.
Yes, good points (if the bowl of and the cheek pieces of the Iatrus helmet are from the same helmet). The notion that Intercisa helmets sometimes had nose guards is wrong in my opinion. It is based on two helmet remains from Augsburg-Pfrsee which are now in different museums. The nose guard should be attached to the helmet bowl in the other museum because it has the grooves/cut-outs for attaching the nose guard.
Looks like a good dating summary to me. I think there is a good chance that helmets like the Augsburg ones without a base ring and the nasal attached directly to the bowl went further in to the 5th century (then simply 400 AD). They are IMO of a more crude and simple style indicative of thar very later period.
The nasal piece of the Augsburg helmet belongs to the other Augsburg helmet (they were found together) which has the suitable "grooves" for the nasal piece. I don`t think we have any evidence of nasal pieces attached to the straight edge of an Intercisa style bowl. I think Christian Köpfer has contacted the museums about this but got no response. Here is the helmet bowl to which the nasal piece really belongs (sorry, couldn`t find better pics right now):
I think we are arguing the same point Virilis. The Augsburg helmet has a part of the nasal brow still attached to the bowl. If the nasal with the Nuremburg helmet is actually meant for the Augsburg helmet that may be a possibility. The point i raised was that helmets like the Augsburg and some of the koblenz ones had the nasal attached to the bowl(with a cut out). This differed from the Berkasovo ones with a base ring to which the nasal and cheek pieces were attached too.
My point was that the Augsburg and helemts like them were of a more crude and simple design which could be more indicative of a later helmet and has more design similarities to the intercisa helmets.
Ok Markus, that seems plausible.
Quote:The point i raised was that helmets like the Augsburg and some of the koblenz ones had the nasal attached to the bowl(with a cut out). This differed from the Berkasovo ones with a base ring to which the nasal and cheek pieces were attached too.
Indeed. Too many hybrids seem to exist. the Biberwier helmet is altogether odd. The Richborough helmet with the raised metal crest is as odd as the Berkasovo I. There are 'Intercisa' type helmets with broad cheekplates, there are 'Berkasovo' type helmets without nasals or base rings.
Are we making a too rigid typology of late roman helmets based on quite few surviving examples? The variation between these about dozen helmets is quite big. Btw, I would love to have some additional info on Concesti and Iatrus helmets. The Richborough helmets are in my opinion a bit "iffy", based on very bold interpretations on fragmentary remnants.
Quote:The Richborough helmets are in my opinion a bit "iffy", based on very bold interpretations on fragmentary remnants.
But for the fact that for one of them we have a good artistic example from Linz, Austria:
[attachment=11617]linz_museum_stele_01.jpg[/attachment]
Thanks, never seen this before. Btw, just found this from an italian site about roman gear (check below). The first roman(?) sword with a medieval-like extended metal guard. The scabbard chape indicates it is from the third c. AD. Have they combined two different sword finds or is this perhaps a later byzantine sword?:
http://www.roma-victrix.com/armamentariu...hae14b.jpg
The Der el Medineh/Leiden type spangenhelm can't be dated precisely between the late 3rd and 6th century. No datatable context is known for either of them as the first was found in a well and the other on a mummified body. The usual late 3rd-early 4th century ascribed to them is only linked to similar helmets beeing depicted on the arch of Galerius. Two similar helmets came from a possible 5-6th century context in Sinj, Croatia, and this type of spangenhelm seems the direct ancestor of the decorated Baldenheim type. Speaking of those, they are not known until the second half of the 5th century.
Good points Benjamin. I am quite convinced (like Simon James) that the Deir el Medineh is depicted in the arch of Galerius. The Leiden helmet I am not so sure of. Maybe we can assume that ridge helmets with nasals (like the Concesti helmets) were used until the middle of the 5th c. AD and then onwards started the era of germanic spangenhelms?
Did you mean the middle of the 5th Century Virilis? That makes sense to me.
Quote:Did you mean the middle of the 5th Century Virilis? That makes sense to me.
Yes Markus, error corrected!
