10-09-2012, 12:01 PM
Salve!
We know for certain that Coolus/Hagenau helmets were worn by legionaries because several have been found with inscriptions referring to legions (and many more with the name and century of the owner inscribed which would also imply use by Roman citizens). We have no direct evidence for use of Coolus/Hagenau helmets by auxiliaries unless one counts a column base from Mainz with a relief of a soldier with oval shield and two spears (which would imply an auxiliary) and a helmet with a straight lower rim which may or may not be a Coolus.
We also know that the earlier Coolus helmets which were traditionally believed to be a Celtic development were (also) used (and developed?) by Romans (e.g. from a Roman shipwreck). However, such helmets are also found in native contexts (e.g. Trier-Olewig). Whether such helmets were local copies or of Roman production is impossible to say.
With respect to the "Gsllic" helmets, some the earliest finds would indicate auxiliary use (graves with native grave goods) which does not exclude use also by legionaries at this time. Helmets of this type are found in legionary contexts from early on but in view of the fact that legions were regularly accompanied by auxiliary cavalry, we do not know whether they were worn by legionaries or auxiliaries. Legionary inscriptions only start much later in the 1st century AD.
I believe that the most recent developments in this respect are that with the finds from Oberaden, Kalkriese, Zurzach etc. we know that the fully developed "Imperial Gallic" was already present around the birth of Christ. Also, French scholars in particular discuss whether the predecessors of the "Imperial Gallic" helmets, namely the Port type may actually have been a Roman development which was taken over by the Celts and not vice versa. We do know of Port helmets from native contexts (votive offerings (Kessel-Lith) or graves (Thür)) but we have a number of early reliefs in Italy (e.g. Aquileia) clearly showing this helmet type.
We know for certain that Coolus/Hagenau helmets were worn by legionaries because several have been found with inscriptions referring to legions (and many more with the name and century of the owner inscribed which would also imply use by Roman citizens). We have no direct evidence for use of Coolus/Hagenau helmets by auxiliaries unless one counts a column base from Mainz with a relief of a soldier with oval shield and two spears (which would imply an auxiliary) and a helmet with a straight lower rim which may or may not be a Coolus.
We also know that the earlier Coolus helmets which were traditionally believed to be a Celtic development were (also) used (and developed?) by Romans (e.g. from a Roman shipwreck). However, such helmets are also found in native contexts (e.g. Trier-Olewig). Whether such helmets were local copies or of Roman production is impossible to say.
With respect to the "Gsllic" helmets, some the earliest finds would indicate auxiliary use (graves with native grave goods) which does not exclude use also by legionaries at this time. Helmets of this type are found in legionary contexts from early on but in view of the fact that legions were regularly accompanied by auxiliary cavalry, we do not know whether they were worn by legionaries or auxiliaries. Legionary inscriptions only start much later in the 1st century AD.
I believe that the most recent developments in this respect are that with the finds from Oberaden, Kalkriese, Zurzach etc. we know that the fully developed "Imperial Gallic" was already present around the birth of Christ. Also, French scholars in particular discuss whether the predecessors of the "Imperial Gallic" helmets, namely the Port type may actually have been a Roman development which was taken over by the Celts and not vice versa. We do know of Port helmets from native contexts (votive offerings (Kessel-Lith) or graves (Thür)) but we have a number of early reliefs in Italy (e.g. Aquileia) clearly showing this helmet type.
Regards,
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
