Crests and Roman Soldiers

[markusaurelius]

I agree that all or most Berkasovo definitely did not have crests (we have many examples that do not have crests), however there were certainly some that did. Considering before people didn't think any of them did, I would say that it is certainly a revelation to some extent.

Of the other finds mentioned by Miks, I am not so sure as he apparently is.
The Koblenz crest mentioned above is just a crest. There is no way whatsoever to judge what type of helmet it may have belonged to. The main difference between a Berkasovo and an Intercisa type being the nasal, the longer cheek guards with hinges attached to the bowl, the guard plates and a base ring, and even these can apparently be on other types (as we see on the Worms-guard plates or the Iatrus - longer cheek guards). As far as I know, the main difference is not formed by the crest, yet Miks is clearly interpreting this part of the helmet as the main type indicator.

Well figure 22 is of a complete central ridge, with slots for a crest and a crease running along the length. Parts of the bowls on the ridge remain. Although I agree that without the identifying marks to distinguish it between a Berkasovo or Intercisa it is hard to tell the classification. I would argue that it certainly leans more towards a Berkasovo however.
1.) it came from a horde of Berkasovo helmets, and 2.) it has good size remnants of silver gilded sheathing still attached, which is also consistent with Berkasovo classified helmets.

Not sure why a crease is indicative of a crest? Possible, but ‘indicative’?

Figure 22 has slots for a crest, and a crease along the ridge. It is logical, that when a crest had to be hammered to the ridge it created a crease. Further more a crease would also help set the crest to the ridge. The other helmet in figure 20 (a Dunapentele/intercisa) also has slots and a crease in the ridge. Not proof,but two examples that are directly linked with crests and creases. Figure 40 with the crease upon closer inspection is actually the same helmet fragment mentioned in fig 22 by the way. Not mentioned before is Figure 63 from his book on the Koblenz finds. It mentions a Berkasovo Cheek piece with part of the scallop at the front and an ear cut out, with a corroded iron crest attached on the back side of it.

It is also interesting to note all of the complete crests and ridges that exist and are mentioned in the paper. It is not clear whether those came from Berkasovo or Intercisa style helmets however.

I think in general it should just be noted that bronze/iron crests were pretty common on later roman helmets. There are a ton of finds of helmet crest Chi-Rho attachments, as well as numerous examples with actual crests of a variety of styles. It would appear that the iconography of the period is not off.