Crests and Roman Soldiers

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Ahhh, I see! I was wondering about that photo, if it was a trick of the light or what....looks great!

[markusaurelius]

Miks has a book on helmets too?
Is this available to us plebs?

It is more or an article than a book and speaks specifically to late Roman Ridge helmets and crests. So it doesn't cover earlier crests. Still very informative for anyone looking at a later period set up.

SPÄTRÖMISCHE KAMMHELME
MIT HOHER KAMMSCHEIBE

Sonderdruck aus
JAHRBUCH DES RÖMISCH-GERMANISCHEN ZENTRALMUSEUMS MAINZ
55. Jahrgang 2008

[Virilis]

Markus, this article by Miks is presented also in the book "Von Prunckstück zun Altmetall" (Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mianz 2008). I have just read it and it concerns the crests mainly in the context of Intercisa-type helmets :-? ... I think the only Deurne / Berkasovo / Concesti-type (a late roman helmet with a nose guard and wide cheek-pieces) which have clearly attachment for a crest is the Budapest helmet...

[Robert Vermaat]

I have just read it and it concerns the crests mainly in the context of Intercisa-type helmets

Not if you count one of the Augsburg helmets and some of the Koblenze remains as Berkasovo II helmets (which Miks clearly does). Myself, I'm a bit more hesitant. He could be right, but I'm not sure about some of these last interpretations.

[Virilis]

I have just read it and it concerns the crests mainly in the context of Intercisa-type helmets

Not if you count one of the Augsburg helmets and some of the Koblenze remains as Berkasovo II helmets (which Miks clearly does). Myself, I'm a bit more hesitant. He could be right, but I'm not sure about some of these last interpretations.

Ok, so that's how the Berkasovo type helmets are linked to his conclusions hock: !

[markusaurelius]

Markus, this article by Miks is presented also in the book "Von Prunckstück zun Altmetall" (Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mianz 2008

He discusses it in the book (Which I have), but the article I mention is separate and has many more photos, including some from the Koblenz finds, which appear to easily be identifiable as Berkasovo II helmet (not necessarily with a base ring).

[Robert Vermaat]

the article I mention is separate and has many more photos, including some from the Koblenz finds, which appear to easily be identifiable as Berkasovo II helmet (not necessarily with a base ring).

It has? I saw just one Koblenz image (plus the fanciful reconstruction), but that was just the crest, without any sign to which type it could have belonged.

[markusaurelius]

I guess many is a term I used loosely But there are a few, Figure 22 from the article shows the Koblenz whole ridge, with the crease in the ridge, which is classified as a Berkasovo variant. Then there is the Augsburg helmet, clearly a Berkasovo II helmet, with slots on the ridge.

Then there is figure 41 from the "Von Prunstuck zum altmetall" that shows a part of a helmet and ridge, which has again the crease in the ridge, indicative of a crest. Figure 63 from the book with a corroded crest stuck to a cheek piece. Then there is the separate example listed in both the book and the article from Iatrus, which is a half of a helmet with the ridge slots on top (not classified as an Intercisa or Berkasovo).

The Koblenz finds really push the use of crests to the Berkasovo helmet style based on what Miks is arguing. I'm sure as with everything else, the cross over between styles is certainly a factor.

[Robert Vermaat]

I am not against the identification of crests on Berkasovo-type helmets, but I find the evidence as presented way too thin to accept that all or most Berkasovo-style helmets had crests on them.

I guess many is a term I used loosely But there are a few, Figure 22 from the article shows the Koblenz whole ridge, with the crease in the ridge, which is classified as a Berkasovo variant. Then there is the Augsburg helmet, clearly a Berkasovo II helmet, with slots on the ridge.

To be exact, my reaction was not about ‘some Berkasovo finds’, but about ‘some Koblenz find’. Of this, Miks shows us only one: fig. 22 indeed, which is just a crest (see below).

Of the other finds mentioned by Miks, I am not so sure as he apparently is.
The Koblenz crest mentioned above is just a crest. There is no way whatsoever to judge what type of helmet it may have belonged to. The main difference between a Berkasovo and an Intercisa type being the nasal, the longer cheek guards with hinges attached to the bowl, the guard plates and a base ring, and even these can apparently be on other types (as we see on the Worms-guard plates or the Iatrus - longer cheek guards). As far as I know, the main difference is not formed by the crest, yet Miks is clearly interpreting this part of the helmet as the main type indicator.

The Augsburg helmet mentioned here is not a perfect specimen of a Berkasovo type, nor of an Intercisa type – it’s mainly the nasal and the decoration on the helmet which pushes the classification towards the Berkasovo, but this is not universally accepted.

Then there is figure 41 from the "Von Prunstuck zum altmetall" that shows a part of a helmet and ridge, which has again the crease in the ridge, indicative of a crest.

Not sure why a crease is indicative of a crest? Possible, but ‘indicative’?

I'm sure as with everything else, the cross over between styles is certainly a factor.

I absolutely agree there. It seems the more helmets we find, the less secure we can be of clearly defined ‘types’.

[Virilis]

Good summary Robert!

[markusaurelius]

I agree that all or most Berkasovo definitely did not have crests (we have many examples that do not have crests), however there were certainly some that did. Considering before people didn't think any of them did, I would say that it is certainly a revelation to some extent.

Of the other finds mentioned by Miks, I am not so sure as he apparently is.
The Koblenz crest mentioned above is just a crest. There is no way whatsoever to judge what type of helmet it may have belonged to. The main difference between a Berkasovo and an Intercisa type being the nasal, the longer cheek guards with hinges attached to the bowl, the guard plates and a base ring, and even these can apparently be on other types (as we see on the Worms-guard plates or the Iatrus - longer cheek guards). As far as I know, the main difference is not formed by the crest, yet Miks is clearly interpreting this part of the helmet as the main type indicator.

Well figure 22 is of a complete central ridge, with slots for a crest and a crease running along the length. Parts of the bowls on the ridge remain. Although I agree that without the identifying marks to distinguish it between a Berkasovo or Intercisa it is hard to tell the classification. I would argue that it certainly leans more towards a Berkasovo however.
1.) it came from a horde of Berkasovo helmets, and 2.) it has good size remnants of silver gilded sheathing still attached, which is also consistent with Berkasovo classified helmets.

Not sure why a crease is indicative of a crest? Possible, but ‘indicative’?

Figure 22 has slots for a crest, and a crease along the ridge. It is logical, that when a crest had to be hammered to the ridge it created a crease. Further more a crease would also help set the crest to the ridge. The other helmet in figure 20 (a Dunapentele/intercisa) also has slots and a crease in the ridge. Not proof,but two examples that are directly linked with crests and creases. Figure 40 with the crease upon closer inspection is actually the same helmet fragment mentioned in fig 22 by the way. Not mentioned before is Figure 63 from his book on the Koblenz finds. It mentions a Berkasovo Cheek piece with part of the scallop at the front and an ear cut out, with a corroded iron crest attached on the back side of it.

It is also interesting to note all of the complete crests and ridges that exist and are mentioned in the paper. It is not clear whether those came from Berkasovo or Intercisa style helmets however.

I think in general it should just be noted that bronze/iron crests were pretty common on later roman helmets. There are a ton of finds of helmet crest Chi-Rho attachments, as well as numerous examples with actual crests of a variety of styles. It would appear that the iconography of the period is not off.

[angus1235]

Hi guys,
      I was wondering about your thoughts and research on Roman soldiers wearing crest. I have read several(and I mean tons)of books on roman equipment and there always seems to be an argument whether or not the legionaries wore crest and when they wore them. there are lot of columns and reliefs show no crests on regular soldiers, but most(not all) Soldier helmets found have crest attachment hardware on them. Some research claims that they wore them during triumphs and parades in rome and other research says that absolutely no military equipment besides belts were allowed to be worn in Rome at anytime. It seems odd and silly to me that they would put the hardware on the helmets in hopes that one day they would be promoted, especially since you hear about soldiers being promoted to Optio or Centurians buying new equipment to fill the part.

I didn't find this topic doing a search, so if I reposted please link me to the right post.

Mike

I found the photo, from the Antonine column.
   
This may help shed light on the legionaries with crests?