10-25-2007, 03:52 PM
I agree, however this helmet was found together with all the other items from the depot in a very (!) confined area under a layer of at least 12 meters of rubble. No other objects from later on were among these findings. The flood seems to have been quite excessive, which explains why all the material (originally more than 10.000 objects, altogether weighing over 400kg) was buried so deep. See :
Hrsg.: Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Die Römer in Schwaben, München, 1985²
W. Hübener, Die römischen Metallfunde von Augsburg Oberhausen, Materialh. Bayer. Vorgesch. 28 (1973).
Unless some Roman later on came by and dug a deep hole in the river bank right into the depot, mixed the helmet into the objects and closed the hole again, it is rather improbable that the helmet dates to a later period. Or the finders mixed the helmet secretely into the findings. Since both these events are rather unlikely, I vote for the early dating.
Oh, and it is not AD 15, it is 15 BC.
Hrsg.: Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Die Römer in Schwaben, München, 1985²
W. Hübener, Die römischen Metallfunde von Augsburg Oberhausen, Materialh. Bayer. Vorgesch. 28 (1973).
Unless some Roman later on came by and dug a deep hole in the river bank right into the depot, mixed the helmet into the objects and closed the hole again, it is rather improbable that the helmet dates to a later period. Or the finders mixed the helmet secretely into the findings. Since both these events are rather unlikely, I vote for the early dating.
Oh, and it is not AD 15, it is 15 BC.
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
