Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Helmets without browguard (Stirnbügel)
#1
I am trying to determine whether the Imperial Gallic C from Zagreb Museum ( http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/ ) had a browguard. I have multiple high-resolution photos of the helmet, and cannot see any traces of the browguard attachment. No holes, no corroded rivets. Unusual, but possible? Two other known helmets of the Imperial Gallic C type do not seem to have had the browguard - Imperial Gallic C 02 ( http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/ ) and Imperial Gallic C 05 ( http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/ ).

Also the Imperial Gallic B 02 - also from Zagreb ( http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/ ) shows no evidence for a browguard. The imperial Gallic G 06 ( http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,96/ ) may be another example. Römische Helme by Marcus Junkelmann shows another helmet from Axel Guttmann's collection (a reproduction shown at http://www.replik-online.de/de/shop/sit ... optionen=N ) dated to the first half of the 1st c CE without a browguard (Stirnbügel, AG 501).

What other 1 century CE Roman infantry helmets without a browguard are known? Any other info/comments will be appreciated.
M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER
(Alexander Kyrychenko)
LEG XI CPF

quando omni flunkus, mortati
Reply
#2
Alexander,

With respect to your helmet, I believe only inspection of the actual helmet may solve the issue. Based on the photos in Robinson and Militaria Sisciensia, it is possible but not proven that a brow guard was fitted. On all the spots where holes for fitting a brow guard would be located, the material appears to be damaged/restored. To me the general design would make a brow guard more likely than not.

As to helmets without brow guard, all of the "Weisenau-Guttmann" type helmets appear to lack a brow guard (Imperial Gallic IGC 02*, Imperial Gallic IGC 04, Imperial Gallic IGC 05, Imperial Gallic IGG 06, Imperial Gallic IGB 02 (=Imperial Italic IIB 01), and the helmet in the Gimbel private collection which was sold in 1904), the Imperial Gallic IGC 03 appears to be another open case. Also those helmets which may be Roman or Celtic Port type helmets (Agen-Port APB 01 - 05, Reka tomb no. 11 (Slovenia), Thür (Germany), Ribemont-sur-Ancre, Gondole, Mont Beuvray (Bibracte), Nievre (all France)) or "Eastern Celtic" (cremation grave at Siemiechow in July 1982 on the Warta River (Poland)) appear to lack brow guards or have integral brow guards. Further, some of the "Imperial Italic" tpyes either lack separate brow guards (Imperial Italic IIB 01, the two helmets from Pompeii), have integral brow guards (Imperial Italic IIF 01?) or are similarly unclear cases (such as the helmets from Hofheim and Gelduba and the later helmet from Theilenhofen).

Note that Montefortino types without brow guard appear to have still been in use during this period (Montefortino MF 01, Montefortino MB 42.)

* I am referring to the nomenclature in the helmet database
Regards,


Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Reply
#3
Jens,

Thank you for your input. The Gallic C from Zagreb has indeed been restored more than once, the firsts time apparently prior to the first publication (to my knowledge) of the find in a 1911 (or 1912?) article, "Oprema rimskogo vojnika u prvo doba carstva" by Hoffiller (available on the Internet). The author speaks of the traces of the browguard, but the photo of the left side of the helmet does not show a hole or rivet. Apparently the helmet found in 1901 has already been restored by then.

Alex.
M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER
(Alexander Kyrychenko)
LEG XI CPF

quando omni flunkus, mortati
Reply
#4
Alexander,

I cannot understand Hoffiller but I have reviewed Waurick, G., 1976: Die roemischen Militaerhelme von der Zeit der Republik bis ins 3. Jh. n. Chr. 237 S., Mainz, Univ., Diss., 1970. He claims that the helmet shows traces of rivet holes and "impressions" (in German: Abdruckspuren) of the brow guard. He does not state whether this judgment is based on review of the actual helmet or the Hoffiller photo you mentioned.

I only have a bad copy of the Hoffiller article you mention but the photo of the left on page 178 appears to show traces of the rivet hole and impression mentioned by Waurick. Also the left side of the rear of the helmet is missing which would not indicate extensive reconstruction at that date.

I would be very grateful if you could post a link to the internet version of the article. Hopefully the photo is clearer there.
Regards,


Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Reply
#5
Jens,

Thank you for the info. Is there a way I could get Waurick? Wink

The link to the part of the article that has info regarding the helmet is this: hrcak.srce.hr/file/80654 The rear of the helmet seems to be intact. I can see the possible traces of the bow guard and a couple of spots that could be the hole of the rivet - before the second rivet of the cheekguard and one above the ear opeining, but is really hard to tell whether it is, and if yes, which one of those spots was the rivet hole.

Alex.
M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER
(Alexander Kyrychenko)
LEG XI CPF

quando omni flunkus, mortati
Reply
#6
Alexander,

Thanks for the link. For the benefit of the other users, the other parts of the Hoffller article are available here:

[url:185l20dr]http://hrcak.srce.hr/?lang=en[/url]

This is the same article I had. The missing rear part in my version was apparently due to the bad quality of the copy. To me the photo does appear to show traces of the rivet and "impression" of the brow guard.

You can order excerpts from Waurick's work online here:
[url:185l20dr]http://www.subito-doc.de/[/url]
Regards,


Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Reply
#7
In the first link, you can see the line of the brow guard, and even what appears to be a large circular area, that could well be the restorers
work, but to me it definately looked as though the impression of the brow guard is there.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#8
Jens mentioned the Theilenhofen helmet (Imperial Italic G), but I notice with interest that Armentaria have put a brow band on theirs (sorry, don't know the manufacturer off hand, is it Danyel Steelcrafts?)
Paul Elliott

Legions in Crisis
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/17815...d_i=468294

Charting the Third Century military crisis - with a focus on the change in weapons and tactics.
Reply
#9
The Theilenhofen helmet originally had a browguard, according to the excavation report fragments of it were found along with the helmet. The brow guard was probably of a sheet-metal type, like on many Niederbieber types.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#10
I would have to agree with Bryron about the line. Also, right above the rivet heads that hold the cheek piece, there is some sort of bulbous pertrusion that appears to have some circular shape. I would think this is where the rivet holes would have been for the peak. They are in line with the "line" that Byron mentions. Also if you follow the line mentioned all the way to the other side, you can see that there is a slight albeit very even and arc-like indentation. I would have to say that there was something there at some point that was pushed against the bowl.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)


Paolo
Reply
#11
Thank you all for your input. No rivet holes can be seen on the helmet as it is now, hence my original question. They could have been there when the 1911 article was published. Hoffiller (the author) speaks generally of the traces of the browguard. He does not mention the rivets specifically, and it is difficult to discern them for certain on the photo. The following publications speak both of the traces of the browguard and the rivets, although it is not known whether their authors had the opportunity to verify that info. Anyway, the consensus seems to be that the helmet did have the browguard :wink:
M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER
(Alexander Kyrychenko)
LEG XI CPF

quando omni flunkus, mortati
Reply
#12
Quote:The Theilenhofen helmet originally had a browguard, according to the excavation report fragments of it were found along with the helmet. The brow guard was probably of a sheet-metal type, like on many Niederbieber types.

I listed this helmet as questionable because the publication (Klumbach/Wamser) states that the "(...) the helmet front was reinforced by a horizontal bar of which securely assignable fragments have NOT been found (...)".
Regards,


Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Reply


Forum Jump: