Lorica segmentata piece from 5th century?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Jens seemed to indicate there were in (his? her? Not good with European names :dizzy: ) in the link I posted earlier.

Thanks for the information. So these are definitely 2nd Century segmentata plates.

[F. MAXIMILIANVS ITALICVS]

So maybe someone just made a mistake, but if the ear laths were found in the same context as the lorica segmentata, it means that the find should be dated to the 2nd century?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

More or less, yes. I must agree with Mike Bishop here.

[jho]

Groller’s publication (Der Römische Limes in Österreich II) used to be online on googlebooks/archive.org. I cannot find it now but this may a copyright issue and users from the US may be able to access it. However, here is Groller’s drawing of the find I was referring to (ignore the drawing bottom right, it is from a different helmet):

[attachment=8991]Helmet.jpg[/attachment]

He found one roughly hemispherical half calotte and another two calottes in 16 fragments which had apparently been tucked into each other as well as 28 larger and may smaller fragments. The material had a thickness of 2-3 mm and all fragments showed the characteristic rows of punctures every 3cm. The form, punctures and the rather thick material all accord well with Intercisa helmets. Interestingly the largest fragment is only a half calotte, so accords well with a helmet bowl built of two halves joined by a ridge. Finally, the number of fragments reminds of other "hoard" finds of Intercisa helmets (Intercisa, Koblenz etc.).

Without further review of the (lost) originals, the case remains to be proven but I can hardly imagine what else these fragments may be.

On the dating of the “Waffenmagazin” there appear to be two schools of thought: one considering it as armamentaria built into the defensive wall and the other considering it as a later stand alone building erected when the wall in this area had fallen apart. However, as the southwest corner of the building is built OVER the wall, it is difficult to imagine how the wall could still have been functional when at least the last phase of the building was erected (Gugl, Carnuntum und sein Legionslager in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter. Von Der Carnuntensis Scutaria zur Frühmittelalterlichen Siedlung des 9./10. Jahrhunderts, available on academia.edu). Again, final clarity would require a new dig according to modern standards which will never happen. However, even if we can date the building, this does not necessarily mean that these helmets and the other finds (all of which appear to be 2nd century) actually belonged to the same stratum.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

What if it was built into the wall? Say a section of the wall had collapsed, so they added on to the Armamentaria in order that they could use the rest of the debris to rebuild the wall, or at least as a facade to look like the wall was still intact?

[jho]

The wall of the "Armamentaria" is not in line with the defensive wall but slightly overlaps it. You can see a drawing in Gugl's publication which is available for free online at academia.edu

[F. MAXIMILIANVS ITALICVS]

So it seems that intercisa helmets and lorica segmentata finds don´t belong to the same period.

[Robert Vermaat]

He found one roughly hemispherical half calotte and another two calottes in 16 fragments which had apparently been tucked into each other as well as 28 larger and may smaller fragments. The material had a thickness of 2-3 mm and all fragments showed the characteristic rows of punctures every 3cm. The form, punctures and the rather thick material all accord well with Intercisa helmets. Interestingly the largest fragment is only a half calotte, so accords well with a helmet bowl built of two halves joined by a ridge. Finally, the number of fragments reminds of other "hoard" finds of Intercisa helmets (Intercisa, Koblenz etc.).

The punctures may look like Intercisa bowls but the hinge sure does not, this being a characteristic of what we call the Berkasovo type (which however does not have such holes on the bowl). We do however know at least one Principate helmet which was 'altered' to include leather edging and Intercisa-style cheek plates.

[jho]

Robert,

The hinge (Fig. 3) is a different find, it does not belong to the fragments with the punctures (fig. 1). Apologies if my snapshot confused you but I was unable to cut out the hinge.

[markusaurelius]

He found one roughly hemispherical half calotte and another two calottes in 16 fragments which had apparently been tucked into each other as well as 28 larger and may smaller fragments. The material had a thickness of 2-3 mm and all fragments showed the characteristic rows of punctures every 3cm. The form, punctures and the rather thick material all accord well with Intercisa helmets. Interestingly the largest fragment is only a half calotte, so accords well with a helmet bowl built of two halves joined by a ridge. Finally, the number of fragments reminds of other "hoard" finds of Intercisa helmets (Intercisa, Koblenz etc.).

The punctures may look like Intercisa bowls but the hinge sure does not, this being a characteristic of what we call the Berkasovo type (which however does not have such holes on the bowl). We do however know at least one Principate helmet which was 'altered' to include leather edging and Intercisa-style cheek plates.

What about the Christies helmet, in all its authenticity swirl does have two halves and hinges. Or some type of Spangenhelm with hinges (like the one from Lieden).

[Robert Vermaat]

What about the Christies helmet, in all its authenticity swirl does have two halves and hinges. Or some type of Spangenhelm with hinges (like the one from Lieden).

Christies and Leiden (not 'Lieden') indeed have hinges, and both are unfortunately not easy to put a dating on. We see the Christies as an earlier model 9if not a fake) largely based on the neck guard I think, but we really don't know if that's correct.
The Leiden helmet, which originated in Egypt I believe, has also been dated to the 6th century.