05-14-2006, 08:09 AM
Quote:the question becomes even more critical: Is this a First Century or Second Century helmet? Any further thoughts?
Ummm, why 'more critical'? The longevity of helmets in Roman service means it could easily have seen service in both the 1st and 2nd centuries. FWIW my gut feeling (and there is no archaeological evidence I am aware of that will directly confirm or gainsay this) is that it is mid-1st century and certainly not 2nd century given the similarity in overall form to attested 1st-century infantry helmets and the absence of cross-piece reinforces BUT (and this is, of course a very big 'but') one can cite later helmets (Theilenhofen for starters) that date to a later period but appear not to conform (assuming Theilenhofen is not an old helmet when lost!).
Arguments tend to swirl around Robinson's typologies and lose sight of the essential fact that typologies are a tool for analysis of a body of data and are never infallible. All sorts of subjective criteria went into Robinson's original classification of these helmets that were quite separate from the original maker's intentions, desires, and dreams (and, more importantly his influences and those of the subsequent helmets derived from it: were there tens, hundreds, thousands? We don't know).
So, you could probably find helmets like this in the 1st century, possibly even some in the 2nd century, but to be dogmatic and say that it is a '1st century' or '2nd century' helmet is running the risk of seeing equipment in a way that no Roman would ever have shared. Is it a serviceable helmet? Yes, okay I'll use it.
Anybody remember spotting M10 tank destroyers on the news a few years back in the recent Balkan unpleasantnesses? Those were WW2 AFVs being used 50 years after they were designed.
Mike Bishop
