Late Roman helmets - missing link?

[Kai]

Thanks for your help! To what time can the Venlo-helmet be dated? The Chi-Rho would point to a post Constantinian use, would not it?

Anyway, I made a quick flowchart to illustrate what we were discussing in the thread. It is in German, but I think you will understand it nonetheless.
The chart consists of three spheres of influences: Graeco-Roman, Danube-Frontier, and Iranian. It does not mean the helmets were exclusively used by these cultures but that certain traditions of making helmets come from these spheres.
The highlighted fields mark groups of helmets directly related to each other, while the arrows mark possible influences.



I dated the Deir el-Medina helmets to the mid 3rd century, mostly because the metal hinges used for attaching the cheek-guards fell out of use later on, but are classical features of earlier models. The all-enclosing cheek-guards, which do not leave the ears open, are a feature unknown to earlier spangenhelmets and might be related to the contemporary Roman tradition of enclosing the face completely. Also the clasps do not have the typical T-shape of later spangenhelmets implying an earlier date.
I think there is a link between these later Roman spangenhelmets of Type Baldenheim, which were also produced in the successor kingdoms, and the Egyptian examples. However if my dating is correct, there is a gap of two hundred years at least.
In between we find the ridge helmets clearly related to the Dura helmet, but from where the Dura helmet stems is unknown. Possibly it is also linked to the steppe tradition.

Now there are two other problems:
First, the archetype of the Danube-Frontier Spangenhelm tradition is absent. This is all the more problematic as the Spangenhelm is almost ubiquitous around 100 AD, with Germanic auxiliary forces having them just like Syrian auxiliary, and not to mention their enemies.
Second, the group of Sassanian spangenhelmets, most prominently from Nineveh, is hard to relate to the overall development. Their dating is almost impossible, although one is said to be 4th century. If true or not, the T-shaped clasps and, to a lesser extent, the scale-patterns on the bowl are either an influence for the Baldenheim-type or are themselves influenced by it. Maybe there is a link I do not see, and maybe that link is the same between the earlier Roman Spangenhelmets and Baldenheim-types.

So, what do you think? I am open for criticism and suggestions to improve the chart.

[kyvernat]

Kai, isn't the Deir-el-Medineh helmet (right on your chart) of later date (4 AD)?

[Simplex]

Hi Kay,
...is there really a missing link ?
1. The pics on the Tjanans column do show roman auxiliaries from the east fighting in the Dacian war(s)
That means
a.they have already been in use in the east already earlier on in the east
Its been part of the eastern military tradition, so to speak.
b.they were in use in the roman army already, albeit in auxiliaries
So we have evidence from before 107 AD of the use of such helmets (Spangenhelm) in the roman army in the western part.
2. I think the question really is: did the "late helmets" come into use in the legions
and when did they so ?
3. This includes the question of parallel use.
As a sidenote: I'd guess that (Dacian Wars) also the time when the crossed bars came into use as bowl reinforcements of "conventional" helmets. (Miks , Vom Prunkstück zum Altmetal say so -- page 2 lowermost)
4. Now the ridge helmets are in a different bag than the Spangenhelm-types altogether.
Although I know the abovementioned source on Spangenhelm, I can think of no source that is accessible to me that would give me a clue about their
earliest use and introduction to the roman army -- both legions and auxiliaries before Poitiers or Augst. Maybe there are some fragments lurking around in magazines of museums
and universities that have gone unnoticed yet. :roll:
5. Scholars to the rescue !! :mrgreen:
Greez & Thanks for the inspiration (the kaichart is great work, as far as I can judge this)

Simplex

[Nathan Ross]

I am open for criticism and suggestions to improve the chart.

It looks pretty good so far. There are a few helmet types missing from it (intentionally?), which perhaps don't demonstrate such an apparently obvious continuum but are interesting nonetheless - the 'Christies helmet' for example. There's also an intriguing helmet type shown on the Arch of Diocletian, virtually contemporary with the Arch of Galerius: the relief is pictured in Southern and Dixon (p.99 'redrawn from Coulston 1990') and also in the Travis' new Roman Body Armour (redrawn again, presumably from the original?) and seems to show a conical helmet with 'attic style' cheekguards, which could mean anything. The apparent detail of the scale armour and shields on the two figures might indicate that this is a genuine depiction rather than something generic or classicised. It's just possible that the helmets might be conical ridged models, similar to the Dura Europos Persian one, but without a more detailed image it's impossible to go further than speculation.

[Kai]

Thanks for your input! I had a short conversation with Siggi via PM, so will only address the points of his which might be of interest for others.


The most remarkable point maybe to consider the Biberwier-helmet as a precursor (or successor?) to the ridge-helmets of type Berkasovo. The helmet has a one-piece bowl but also a ridge and a brow-band, on which a mail-coif and reinforced cheek-guards are mounted. Considering the use of hinges and the bowl made of a one piece, it could be predating the other ridge helmets for these are features found on earlier Roman helmets regularly. Unfortunately, there is no way to date the Biberwier...

I may make another chart proposing the idea of the Biberwier being the link I look for, but not any time soon because I got a lot to do these days.




As for the other points:
Sure the Spangenhelmet must have been in rather widespread use in the Roman army by Trajan. Not only the (so-called Syrian) archer auxiliary but also the Germanic auxiliary dons them amidst wolf and bear skins. It is also interesting to note that the archer helmets do not feature the high, spiked dome which is typical for (older) eastern helmets. The chart only offered a selection of helmets used by the main protagonists of the war: one Roman, one Dacian, and one Sarmatian/Steppe.
This widespread use all the more begs the question how they came into use and why we are missing contemporary finds, not to mention an archetype predating them.

Indeed a similar question comes when reviewing the ridge helmets. With the possible exception of the Dura-Helmet there is no archetype. Even worse, there is no development in them. As Miks and others have noted, the earliest helmets do not differ much, if at all, from the latest. This is a very unusual situation compared to earlier helmets. Just take a look how the Imperial Gallic developed in a similar timeframe! And we have precursors of them, lots of.

After all, maybe there was a centralized armament decision to issue a newly designed helmet after reviewing Persian helmets. I am highly skeptical of such a modern view on it, but considering the evidence there are not many other options left, are there? The Biberwier might be the solution to that problem, or not.


The parallel use of Spangenhelm and ridge helmet types is not entirely unlikely, imo. Although old opinions about the Baldenheim being a barbarian type are hard to eradicate, the analyses of the last 25 years leave little doubt that it was in fact an (eastern) Roman type. While influences of the late Sassanid Spangenhelm type Nineveh can clearly be seen it is hard to tell what direction these influences have taken.
So unless the Baldenheim came out of the blue again, the Spangenhelm was definitely known to the Romans.

However this makes me wonder why the ridge helmets were discarded , after they have been preferred to the Spangenhelmets for some 150 years.


@ Nathan,

Thanks! Do you have an image of the pseudo-Attic helmet you mention? I would not include it because I decided to fill the chart with types of which excavated specimens (or least closely related types) are known. Otherwise Attic helmets would have to go there en masse
Nonetheless it sounds interesting.

The Christies helmet (and its cousin) is not too different from the Berkasovo-type represented by Deurne (early) and Concesti (late), is it?



@ Artem,

There is no save date for the three Egyptian Spangenhelmets, of which I put two in the chart. The circumstances of their excavation are difficult, to put it mildly. Dating thus relies entirely on typology.

[ValentinianVictrix]

A very interesting topic, but I wonder how accurate the various links can be when we have such scant evidence for helmet types. How many helmets that are presumed to be of Late Roman origin have been found, less than a hundred? less than a thousand? How many helmets are likely to have been in existence between 300AD and 400AD? One million? Three million? What about the copious artwork and monumental works that show types that have not been found so far, such as the common Attic types?

[Robert Vermaat]

A very interesting topic, but I wonder how accurate the various links can be when we have such scant evidence for helmet types.

You are right, that's always a question that needs to be asked. But this applies to every helmet type, not just Late Romans. The answer must be that we don't know how accurate our knowledge is, and as we are surprised by new helmets every other decade, it seems we are in for a few surprises yet.