Late Roman helmets - typology

[markusaurelius]

I meant Augsburg

[Robert Vermaat]

I meant Augsburg

OK! I was thinking that you had a new name for Hétény or maybe even a new helmet...

[markusaurelius]

haha. No, thats my brain subsituting a word that I know for one that I don't

Although I must admit, that late Roman helmets are not organized that well imo. Some are all called Intercisia, and then other are Berksovo, Budapest, Duerne etc etc. And then to boot others are a mix of all of the above!

[Robert Vermaat]

Although I must admit, that late Roman helmets are not organized that well imo. Some are all called Intercisia, and then other are Berksovo, Budapest, Duerne etc etc. And then to boot others are a mix of all of the above!

You have types and findspots.

Two main types of Late Roman helmets:
1) Ridge helmets
2) Spangenhelmets

Ridge helmets come in two types:
1a) Berkasovo (like the Berkasovo, Budapest, Deurne, others)
1b) Intercisa (like the Intercisa, Augst, Worms, others).

[markusaurelius]

ahhh that definitely makes more sense. Wouldn't a helmet like the Deurne almost be considered a Spagenhelm? Are there not any "cross over examples?" Some that have say a cheak piece like the Deurne, but a 2 half Ridge like the Augsburg?

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Markus, I split the post into a new topic.

No, so far I've never seen any 'cross-over' type between a spangenhelm and a ridge helmet. The Deurne certainly is a ridge helmet, like the Burgh Castle it may have several segments (unlike the Berkasovo which has only two), but there's still the ridge that fastens them.

Yes, there are 'cross-overs' between the Berkasovo and Intercisa types. The main thing for the Berkasovo-type is the base ring though, which enables a nasal and a hinge for the cheek guards.

[markusaurelius]

Thanks for splitting the post. I felt bad to hijacking it :oops:

The main thing for the Berkasovo-type is the base ring though, which enables a nasal and a hinge for the cheek guards.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean here. Obviously they had a way for the cheek pieces to attach, as well as the neck guard (although I believe the Deurne ones were attached with buckles). In terms of the Augsburg ones I'm not sure how the cheeks and neck guard were attached as they neck guard does not have any buckles.....

I guess in general terms how did the cheek pieces get attached on the Intercisia, as well as say the Augsburg ones. Was there just some leather stitching attaching them? I don't recall there being a hinge in place.

[Robert Vermaat]

The main thing for the Berkasovo-type is the base ring though, which enables a nasal and a hinge for the cheek guards.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean here. Obviously they had a way for the cheek pieces to attach, as well as the neck guard (although I believe the Deurne ones were attached with buckles). In terms of the Augsburg ones I'm not sure how the cheeks and neck guard were attached as they neck guard does not have any buckles.....

Intercisa cheek plates are attached to the bowl with leather stripss, held by a rivet. Berkasovo cheek guards are attached to a base ring, with a hing in front and a rivet behind that. The bowl is also attached to the base ring. Basically it's a more complicated helmet. :wink:

I guess in general terms how did the cheek pieces get attached on the Intercisia, as well as say the Augsburg ones. Was there just some leather stitching attaching them? I don't recall there being a hinge in place.

No, neck guards are also attached by a two leather strips to the bowl itself, held by a rivet each:

[Caratacus]

You have types and findspots.

Two main types of Late Roman helmets:
1) Ridge helmets
2) Spangenhelmets

Ridge helmets come in two types:
1a) Berkasovo (like the Berkasovo, Budapest, Deurne, others)
1b) Intercisa (like the Intercisa, Augst, Worms, others).

I think it's a lot more complicated than that, actually! There are at least three types (sub-types) of Spangenhelmes, for example! Have a look at the end of the Hedlmet database!

Caratacus (Dr. Mike Thomas)

[Robert Vermaat]

There are at least three types (sub-types) of Spangenhelmes, for example!

That would still make them three sub-types of the main type 'spangenhelm', right? :wink:

[Caratacus]

That would still make them three sub-types of the main type 'spangenhelm', right? :wink:

The full typology would look something like this:

Type A: Combe helmets

Type A 1 (Intercissa),
Type A 2/I (Berkasovo II),
Type A 2/II (Berkasovo I),
Type A 2/III (Augsburg),
Type A 2/IV (Special),
Type A 2/V (Unclassified)

Type B: Strip-Lamellar helmets

Type C: Lamellar helmets

Type C/I, (Niederstotzingen)
Type C/II, "Special" forms

Type D: Unclassified fragments

Type E: Spangenhelme

Type E/I (Baldenheim),
Type E/II (Der-el-Medineh/Leiden),
Type E/III, ("Special" forms)

Type F: Banded helmets

Type F/I, (St. Vid),
Type F/II ("Special" forms)

Type G: Banded-Spangenhelme

Type G/I (Amlash),
Type G/II ("Special" forms)

I'm still trying to work out the typology criteria for these various divisions. One of the many problems is that these helmets had a very long period of use, right up into the Merovingian times. Are they Roman then? Good question! If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck - it's probably a duck. :lol:

[Robert Vermaat]

The full typology would look something like this:

Ok, I seee what you mean. However, I think this looks a bit too complicated.

Type A: Combe helmets
Type A 1 (Intercissa),
Type A 2/I (Berkasovo II),
Type A 2/II (Berkasovo I),
Type A 2/III (Augsburg),
Type A 2/IV (Special),
Type A 2/V (Unclassified)

That should be 'ridge' helmets, right? At least I think that's the current concensus.
I agree about A1 and A2, but why would A2/III (Augsburg) be different from The berkasovo II? Please explain? Also, which of the two Augsburg helmets are you referring to?Besides that, I think that a whole subcategory A2/IV for 'specials' is too much, and unclassified helmets are that - unclassified, therefore you can't reserve a class for them. :wink:
Where do you classify the Deurne and the Burgh Castle?

Type B: Strip-Lamellar helmets

What do you mean by these?

Type C: Lamellar helmets
Type C/I, (Niederstotzingen)
Type C/II, "Special" forms

Again, a special class for special forms is superfluous. Also, this helmet is not a Late Roman helemt and therefore should not appear in this classification in the first place.

Type D: Unclassified fragments

A class of unclassified fragments? :roll:

Type E: Spangenhelme
Type E/I (Baldenheim),
Type E/II (Der-el-Medineh/Leiden),
Type E/III, ("Special" forms)

Yes, I think these are two very different helmets, agreed. Again, a whole class for special forms is not valid.

Type F: Banded helmets
Type F/I, (St. Vid),
Type F/II ("Special" forms)

I agree that this is a special class, but on what grounds do you include them in the 'Late Roman' helmet classification? Are there securely dated banded helmets that date to the period under discussion?

Type G: Banded-Spangenhelme
Type G/I (Amlash),
Type G/II ("Special" forms)

Is this amalgamated form not just another Spangenhelm? Is it Late Roman or a later banded/spangen helm?

Are they Roman then? Good question! If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck - it's probably a duck. :lol:

But if you can't tell wheater it quacked, you should probably refrain from calling it a duck or a goose!
I think you hit the nail on the head - part of the helmets in your classification aren't Late Roman.

[Caratacus]

I think I need to get this straightened out!

The typologogy and classification isn't mine - it's due to a chap called Mahan Vogt, in his book "Spangenhelme", Kataloge Vor- and Frügeschichtlicher Altertümer, Band 37 (published by RGZM, Mainz, in 2006). This is an exhaustive treatment (and I do mean exhaustive, it's more than 300 pages of A4 size closely worded descriptive work) of the subject and includes not only complete helmets, but also fragments of these helmets, sometimes amounting to no more than a small piece of one of the 'spangen'.

The book is written using the typology system that I outlined. Unfortunately, in many cases (as with the Robinson book) there is often (though not in all cases to be sure) no clear description as to what the type is based on. I have been trying to extract this information from the German text, which isn't easy!

Vogt makes no real distinction between the 'late' Roman pattern of helmet and those of a slightly later period (Merovingian). His idea is that if these later (5th and 6th century AD) helmets have the same characteristics as the earlier 'Roman' ones, then they should be included. I find myself agreeing with this as it presents things as a continuous development.

As to why these "special" classes should be included - they are NOT irrelevant. If they have some of the characteristics, but not all, then they are sub-types of the main type and need to be there so that people can see how they fit (or don't fit) into the general scheme of things. You can't just leave them out because they don't "quite fit". Note that class D is a class of unclassified fragments. You can put them at the end if you like - sometimes it's only possible to say that they come from one of these helmets and nothing more than that. So, yes, you do need a class for these bits and pieces.

The German word "Kamm" means "combe". Call it 'ridge' if you prefer - same thing really, although I think that the word combe is more descriptive of what we have here, rather like a 'cockscombe' in some respects.

When I've sorted out all the bits and pieces, I'll get Jasper to post up the thing as a typology, as with the Robinson one I did some time back.

Caratacus
(Dr. Mike Thomas)

[Robert Vermaat]

The typologogy and classification isn't mine - it's due to a chap called Mahan Vogt

Ah, that explains a lot!

Vogt makes no real distinction between the 'late' Roman pattern of helmet and those of a slightly later period (Merovingian).

Ah, that, too, explains things - I was offering a (simplified) Late Roman helmet typology and you hit me with a period classification from Roman to Medieval times.
Sure, one can add a lot of helmets, that muddles a straight comparison. I've limited myself to the Roman army, but one could look at helemts worn by Germanic soldiers, or 'helmets 300-600 AD' to arrive at Vogt's classification.

Personally, for a classification I would rather like to limit my research pool than to include each and every helmet. :wink:

His idea is that if these later (5th and 6th century AD) helmets have the same characteristics as the earlier 'Roman' ones, then they should be included. I find myself agreeing with this as it presents things as a continuous development.

Very true, but it muddles the subject. 'Late Roman' helmets are not helmets c. 600 AD derived from Roman helmets or from helmets worn during Roman times.
I mean, the Niederstotzingen helmet may be from the same period, but it's totally alien to ridge and spangenhelmets and it's therefore useless to even contemplate it for a Late Roman helmet typology.

As to why these "special" classes should be included - they are NOT irrelevant. If they have some of the characteristics, but not all, then they are sub-types of the main type and need to be there so that people can see how they fit (or don't fit) into the general scheme of things. You can't just leave them out because they don't "quite fit".

You misss my point. I do not mean to exclude them, but I cannot see a reason to create a different class for them, because they are not a different class:

Note that class D is a class of unclassified fragments. You can put them at the end if you like - sometimes it's only possible to say that they come from one of these helmets and nothing more than that.

Well exactly! They might come from any of the other types, had we been able to recognise them. But we can't.
it's like:
Type A: German cars
Type A1: Porsche
Type A2: BMW
Type A3: Mercedes
Type A4: Audi
Type A5: Volkswagen
Type A6: burnts bits and bobs from a wrecked car
A6 is not a type at all, it's unrecognised, but goes without saying, it's not a sixth car type, it belongs to either of the first 5 types.

So, no, you do need a class for these bits and pieces.

The German word "Kamm" means "combe". Call it 'ridge' if you prefer - same thing really, although I think that the word combe is more descriptive of what we have here, rather like a 'cockscombe' in some respects.

yes, the german word is Kammhelme, but the English word is Ridge helmets.

When I've sorted out all the bits and pieces, I'll get Jasper to post up the thing as a typology, as with the Robinson one I did some time back.

Hmm.
I'm not sure that's a good idea. Robinson's typology is accepted by the scientific community. Is Vogt's accepted as well?

[Caratacus]

I think that you are being a little unfair with your "Type 6" above! :lol: The point is that the fragments are recognisable as being of this general type of helmet (believe me, if you had the book in front of you, you would see what I mean by this), just not which particular sub-type they belong to. This isn't a case of "bits and bobs from a wrecked car" but "bits from what is probably a Spangenhelme, but we're not sure which particular type", or to continue with your analogy: "It's a lump from a BMW, but we are not sure which model or which year".

From what I can gather, the 'Special' classification is there because some of these helmets have something additional to the others. This may, of course, be idiosyncratic - there is a tendency amongst archaeologists to argue from the specific to the general (which gives scientific types like me the heebee-geebees) on the grounds that "this is the one we have, so this one at least is definite". It's the assumption that they are all like that that bothers me!

Robinson's helmet classification has its own problems (there's been plenty of discussion about that here in the past). I agree that it's generally accepted as being 'a' way of dividing up helmets according to specific characteristics (which the so-called 'Continental comparison system' doesn't do at all well - but I digress here and I'm biased anyway). As to whether Vogt's late helmet classification is accepted, I don't know. To my knowledge, it's the only comprehensive attempt to do this so far. In other words, it seems to be 'the only game in town'. It is the basis upon which I am putting these helmets into the database, so it should be to everyone's advantage to give the criteria that are being used for dividing up these items. As with the Robinson classification, if at some later stage we can come up with a better system, then it can always be altered.

It has to be said that Vogt's book is mainly about the Spangenhelme type (and mainly about the Baldenheim sub-group at that) and the remainder of the helmets are accorded scant space by comparison (just as with HRR, the book is mainly about helmets, which rather belies the title of "The Armour of Imperial Rome"). However, he does include them. The distribution of these helmets, even as late as the 6th century AD, places them squarerly within the 'Roman' sphere of influence, albeit from the eastern provinces (the book has a whole chapter on this aspect of things). I think that the whole exercise is a valuable (and valiant) attempt to try and place these artefacts within their context.

There is another difficulty, in that many of these helmets have a somewhat dubious provenance, both in terms of dating and in terms of their find sites - they are often described as "deposit finds". If we exclude one because it is described as being 'Merovingian', then we may be excluding something which is very likely 'late Roman' but has been misdated. When in doubt, err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion, I would say.

I can see where you are coming from on some of this - just where do we call a halt and draw the line? Is a Byzantine helmet still 'Roman'? It certainly isn't from what a lot of people would describe as being of the Roman 'empire' period but unless you ignore the cultural aspect of things and just take an arbitary date (e.g. 410 AD) then you are always going to have these problems. Personally, I'd rather include them in and then worry about whether they belong there later, when we have some more information. As an example, when I did my "thing" with the segmentata armour, I included a lot of buckles that were most probably belt buckles rather than from the armour - but they were near enough in size to be included, so I shoved them in! :wink:

Caratacus
(Dr. Mike Thomas)