Christies Late Roman helmet: 1 or 2?

[Conal]

I would like opinions on the elements of difference in these two helmets please, such as;

(1) the little up swings on the eyebrow edges
(2) the cheek guards have a small edge turn out
(3) hinge on the neck guard
(4) crossing cheek pieces over chin on one helmet

Why would a faker risk adding things not on other ridge helmets?

I realise that making an exact copy of an existing helmet would be daft but using elements from diferent existing helmets makes more sense to me.

Btw; I'm afraid I must confess I'm emotionally invested in these as I love the look of them so forgive me if I sound desperate to find reasons to de-fake them :errr:

[Urselius]

The state of preservation of an old iron object is highly variable, and is directly determined by the chemical conditions of its environment.

The Anglo-Saxon Coppergate Helmet is a case in point - see here for its beautiful state of preservation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anglo...Helmet.jpg

This was buried in soggy Northern England and most of the conservation and repair it was subjected to was as a result of the damage made by the mechanical digger when it was unearthed. Otherwise the helmet was in a remarkably undistorted and uncorroded condition.

We have no information on the conditions in which the two Roman helmets were apparently preserved, so their lack of distortion and relatively low level of corrosion says very little about their genuineness - as similar levels of preservation are demonstrably possible.

Also worth noting on the Coppergate Helmet are the exact and well-finished edges of the iron elements of the skull - armourers did have files, even then.

Also see the Pioneer helmet:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e...Helmet.jpg

Both of these Anglo-Saxon helmets I would class as being derived from the Ridge Helmet, somewhat modified over time admittedly, and both have hinged cheekpieces.

[Diocle]

So do we know the archaeological contest of these two helmets? Do we know the exact location in which they should have been found? The chamber in which they were preserved untouched by time with their original shape, has this place a name?

[Urselius]

The two helmets are possible to interpret as transitional types. Given that it is inescapable that some Roman armourers must have worked before, during and after the introduction of the Ridge Helmet, it is likely that at least some of these craftsmen would have carried over design elements from the previous Roman helmet types.

In the shape of the cheekpieces: leaving a trefoil shaped opening for the face, in overlapping them at the chin fastening and in being hinged to the skull, they conform to earlier helmet patterns. These characteristics could be thought of as having been transferred from the earlier to the later helmets.

[Urselius]

So do we know the archaeological contest of these two helmets? Do we know the exact location in which they should have been found? The chamber in which they were preserved untouched by time with their original shape, has this place a name?

As I said in my post, this is unknown. What my post was intended to highlight was that "iron helmets of great age can be wonderfully well preserved and that, therefore, good preservation does not constitute a hindrance to authenticity in itself".

The Sutton Hoo helmet was placed in a chamber and it shattered into a mosaic of corroded fragments, the Coppergate Helmet was in a wood-lined pit - I wouldn't become wedded to the idea of a chamber, possibly the best preservation would be produced by a helmet falling into anoxic silt in a watery place.

[markusaurelius]

"iron helmets of great age can be wonderfully well preserved and that, therefore, good preservation does not constitute a hindrance to authenticity in itself".

I don't think anyone is disputing that their state of preservation means they may not be authentic. One only need to look at the other helmets of the period, some of which are in great condition.

What the analysis of the metal (if any is left) and the corrosion layer will tell us is if the "Rust" was artificial, or consists of the many iron ore composites that are created from corrosion. An artificially "Rusted" helmet would likely show signs of the chemical used to age it and not reveal the types of minerals and materials that comes with a corroding piece of iron. It may even reveal some details of the soil they were in should they be found to be authentic.

[Urselius]

"iron helmets of great age can be wonderfully well preserved and that, therefore, good preservation does not constitute a hindrance to authenticity in itself".

I don't think anyone is disputing that their state of preservation means they may not be authentic. One only need to look at the other helmets of the period, some of which are in great condition.

What the analysis of the metal (if any is left) and the corrosion layer will tell us is if the "Rust" was artificial, or consists of the many iron ore composites that are created from corrosion. An artificially "Rusted" helmet would likely show signs of the chemical used to age it and not reveal the types of minerals and materials that comes with a corroding piece of iron. It may even reveal some details of the soil they were in should they be found to be authentic.

If you look back over the many posts I think that you will find that a number of posts cited the condition of the helmets as a major factor in arousing suspicions. Full metallurgical tests, carried out by an impartial and well qualified laboratory would indeed answer all questions - but we are forced to evaluate these helmets without that definitive process having taken place, unfortunately.

[Diocle]

Urselius, sorry I didn't want to look polemic, please believe me, the fact is that they both look too cool to be real ....

... they are the perfect dream of any Late Roman historian or lover, they are what we dream when we close our eyes thinking: 'But why didn't they make the cheek pieces more enveloping, why didn't they make the shape of their ridge helmets more ... rounded?'

[Urselius]

I have no particular conviction that the two helmets are authentic, I am merely making an assertion that the apparent quality of preservation is not a bar to authenticity.

Now you have raised it, the fact that the helmets are just what Late Roman armour afficionados would adore to be real is also no bar, in and of itself, to them being real.

To return to the Coppergate Helmet, before it was found the only Anglo-Saxon helmets in existence were the Benty Grange spangenhelm and the Sutton Hoo masked helmet. Surviving pictorial evidence from 7th-8th century objects - the Anglo-Saxon Franks Casket and one of the Pictish Aberlemno Stones - showed warriors in very distinctive helmets. They were rounded and rather like crash-helmets in shape and had very exaggeratedly long nasals. If you had asked an Anglo-Saxon scholar interested in miliary equipment what they would have given their eye teeth for it is an example of such a helmet. Then the Coppergate Helmet was found, exactly like the pictorial sources and in breathtaking condition.

Before the Benty Grange helmet was discovered Anglo-Saxonists had dismissed the descriptions in Beowulf of helmets with boar crests as being poetic licence. Now we have two boar-crested Anglo-Saxon helmets (Benty Grange and Pioneer).

Just because it appears to be too good to be true, it doesn't mean that it is too good to be true.

[Virilis]

Just a thought (can`t get these helmet out of my mind, it seems). Doesn`t the iron nasal guards of the so-called Christie`s helmets look surprisingly thin for protective purposes? I think the genuine surviving gilded silver sheathings of nasal guards must have had sturdier iron backings?

[Conal]

Just a thought (can`t get these helmet out of my mind, it seems). Doesn`t the iron nasal guards of the so-called Christie`s helmets look surprisingly thin for protective purposes? I think the genuine surviving gilded silver sheathings of nasal guards must have had sturdier iron backings?

Maybe the central ridge provides sufficient stiffness.

It may also be a crumple zone designed to stop a sword cutting into the face as with the cheek pieces a horizontal sword strike can only go so far.

[Virilis]

Conal, I don`t think the central ridge would give enough additional strength. Of course it would also work as a crumple zone designed to stop a sword cutting into the face. Anyway it would be crazy idea to have a thin nose guard which would sink to the wearers face on impact. What`s the point? This still puzzles me !

[Conal]

Conal, I don`t think the central ridge would give enough additional strength. Of course it would also work as a crumple zone designed to stop a sword cutting into the face. Anyway it would be crazy idea to have a thin nose guard which would sink to the wearers face on impact. What`s the point? This still puzzles me !

We need one of our smithies to try it out to see if an appreciable difference occurs with ridging.

As to crumple zone, maybe not sink into the face but slow down enough to minimise impact. One must clutch at straws sometimes :whistle:

I would be more concerned with the actual attachment to the helmet. How well would four rivets hold up in a serious impact?

[Virilis]

The nasal guards of several late roman helmets usually were not attached any more securely, I think. I would really like to know where these helmets were found etc.

[Robert Vermaat]

To dig up this old thread, I read reports of the recent EXARC publication (?) in which archaeologist made a point about accuracy among reenactors. Personally I see that as a good thing, 30+ years after Marcus Junkelmann it would be very acceptable for more archaeologists to become involved.

This would be a great case in point where the 'professionals' could add pro or contra arguments regarding the 'Christies helmets' being genuine.