Imperial-Italic D helmet:question

[Crispvs]

Hmmm... I am inclined to disagree with Junkelmann's later dating of the Mainz Italic type 'D', largley based on the form of the helmet itself, which easily fits within the range of first century shapes. The form of the copper-alloy sheathing on the occipit and the neck guard also compare well with mid-first century helmets. It should also be noted that the Hoffheim helmet (Imperial Italic type 'E') is of very similar form and was found in a midden in a level dating to around AD100 or slightly later. By the time of its deposition the Hoffheim helmet must already have been in existence for some time, and as it shows no signs of battle damage this strongly suggests that it may have been manufactured a quarter of a century or more before, placing it firmly in the first century AD. Unfortunately virtually all of the Hoffheim helmet's copper-alloy fittings had been stripped from it at the time of deposition so we cannot be sure of how much its outward decoration resembled that of the Mainz helmet.

It is true that the applied decoration on the Mainz helmet resembles that of the Guttmann helmet, but that does not mean that they necessarily mean that they have to be contemporary. The similarity of the Mainz and Krefeld helmets strongly suggests that they are contemporary and maybe even that they came from the same workshop. Their similarity of form to the Hoffheim helmet suggests a first century date. Although the applied tabulae ansatae on the Krefeld helmet are not paralelled by other first century examples, the form of decoration is hardly unknown and can clearly be seen on the Mainz Imperial Gallic type 'I'.

As to the exact chronology of the cross banding, this must remain a matter of speculation until further examples come to light which can be securely dated, but is is not beyond the realms of possibility that if the Guttmann helmet was made in the same area as the earlier Mainz and Krefeld helmets a local decorative tradition may have had a role. Incidentally, the development of cross bracing need not necessarily have been it terms of flattening out and becoming more decorative than functional. The development as I see it is exactly the opposite, with crossed re-enforcements becoming higher and more substantial, as evidenced by the re-enforcements on the 'Cavalry 'D' and 'E' helmets, as well as the Florence helmet. The earliest known examples of this form are the examples dating to the time of Marcus Aurelius found at Corbridge and Xanten. The earlier type seems to have continued contemporaniously, judging by Cavalry type 'F'. There is also the possibility that a style of helmet decoration involving crossed copper-alloy bands could have given armourers the idea for the field modification seen on the Berzobis helmet in the first place and thus given rise to crossed re-enforcements.

As a footnote though, it must still be acknowledged that Robinson commented on the similarity of the decorative technique used on the Mainz helmet to that used on some third century cavalry helmets and implied that he though it just possible that it had stayed in service for an exceptionally long time.

Now I need to know more about the Krefeld Italic 'D'. What can you tell me about the circumstances of the find frater Peronis?

Crispvs