02-21-2011, 06:01 PM
I could not resist and actually ordered it myself. I was positively surprised to find that the publication is bilingual. A short summary follows:
The helmet was turned up by ploughing. It is made of copper alloy (bronze with 5-6% tin). The surface shows traces of having been tinned. Otherwise the surface and the workmanship in general are rather rough (many hammer and chisel marks). The damage to the bowl was inflicted from the inside so was probably caused from ploughing when it was in the ground rather than battle when in active use. The crossed reinforcements and the peak are missing (those exhibited are modern additions) but their existence is proven not only by respective rivet holes but also by traces on the helmet surface in the form of thin lines in the lighter reddish original bronze color which stand out against the darker, formerly tinned areas of the helmet surface. Scientific anaylsis has shown corrosion products along these lines which may indicate that the crossed reinforcements were originally from iron rather than bronze.
The guards for the ears have been forced out from the sides of the helmet bowl. The two cheek guards are secured beneath the chin by means of two sets of holes: The left cheek piece had two circular holes and the right one a circular hole and a large rectangular opening. Vujovic believes that the right piece overlapped the left and was secured by a presumed longish turning rivet in the upper hole of the left, the role of the lower holes is unknown.
The depth of the helmet is more shallow than other specimens of this type and the cheekpieces more curved. The appearance of the helmet is therefore closer to earlier helmet types and in facts resembles Peter Connolly’s reconstruction of the Florence helmet (except that the cheek pieces are wider and overlap).
The neck guard carried a punched inscription: „> - IIII - IVL / M - I - [L/E]VC“.
Velenrajter translated this as: "C(ohors) quarta IVL(iana) M(anipulus) I. LVC(ii).“. However Vujovic correctly identifies the second part as the name of the owner "M(arcus) I(ulius) EVC(...)“ and believes that the cognomen was of Greek type (Eucarpus or Eucharis or similar).
The first letter is clearly the inverted „C“ for Centuria. Therefore Vujovic prefers the reading: „C(enturia) IIII IVL(ii)“ for the first line.
Not being an epigraphist, my own additional observation is this: If the „IIII“ behind the sign for century is actually a numeral, this would accord with a formula known predominantly for legio II Parthica and field army vexillations to name centuries not after the centurion but by cohors and place in the battle line (Speidel, Roman Army Studies II, pp. 21). However, in this case one would expect something like „pilus“ „hastatus“ or „princeps“ to follow (the formula is „>“ followed by the numeral of the cohors followed by the rank of the centurion, e.g. hastatus posterior). In this case „IVL(ius)“ appears fairly certain. Therefore the IIII may actually also represent part of a name, e.g. „ C(enturia) TITI(?) IVL(II) / M(arcus) I(ulius) EVC(...)“ or similar. One of the photos in Vujovic appear to show at least one, possibly two additional dots which would make the first „I“ a „T“ ("TIII").
The helmet was turned up by ploughing. It is made of copper alloy (bronze with 5-6% tin). The surface shows traces of having been tinned. Otherwise the surface and the workmanship in general are rather rough (many hammer and chisel marks). The damage to the bowl was inflicted from the inside so was probably caused from ploughing when it was in the ground rather than battle when in active use. The crossed reinforcements and the peak are missing (those exhibited are modern additions) but their existence is proven not only by respective rivet holes but also by traces on the helmet surface in the form of thin lines in the lighter reddish original bronze color which stand out against the darker, formerly tinned areas of the helmet surface. Scientific anaylsis has shown corrosion products along these lines which may indicate that the crossed reinforcements were originally from iron rather than bronze.
The guards for the ears have been forced out from the sides of the helmet bowl. The two cheek guards are secured beneath the chin by means of two sets of holes: The left cheek piece had two circular holes and the right one a circular hole and a large rectangular opening. Vujovic believes that the right piece overlapped the left and was secured by a presumed longish turning rivet in the upper hole of the left, the role of the lower holes is unknown.
The depth of the helmet is more shallow than other specimens of this type and the cheekpieces more curved. The appearance of the helmet is therefore closer to earlier helmet types and in facts resembles Peter Connolly’s reconstruction of the Florence helmet (except that the cheek pieces are wider and overlap).
The neck guard carried a punched inscription: „> - IIII - IVL / M - I - [L/E]VC“.
Velenrajter translated this as: "C(ohors) quarta IVL(iana) M(anipulus) I. LVC(ii).“. However Vujovic correctly identifies the second part as the name of the owner "M(arcus) I(ulius) EVC(...)“ and believes that the cognomen was of Greek type (Eucarpus or Eucharis or similar).
The first letter is clearly the inverted „C“ for Centuria. Therefore Vujovic prefers the reading: „C(enturia) IIII IVL(ii)“ for the first line.
Not being an epigraphist, my own additional observation is this: If the „IIII“ behind the sign for century is actually a numeral, this would accord with a formula known predominantly for legio II Parthica and field army vexillations to name centuries not after the centurion but by cohors and place in the battle line (Speidel, Roman Army Studies II, pp. 21). However, in this case one would expect something like „pilus“ „hastatus“ or „princeps“ to follow (the formula is „>“ followed by the numeral of the cohors followed by the rank of the centurion, e.g. hastatus posterior). In this case „IVL(ius)“ appears fairly certain. Therefore the IIII may actually also represent part of a name, e.g. „ C(enturia) TITI(?) IVL(II) / M(arcus) I(ulius) EVC(...)“ or similar. One of the photos in Vujovic appear to show at least one, possibly two additional dots which would make the first „I“ a „T“ ("TIII").
Regards,
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
