Ridge Helmet Naming?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I'm interested in what are the general terms for the two types of ridge Helmets? I have seen "Intercisa-Type" and "Berkasovo-Type" used to generally describe all ridge helmets in those two categories. However, I'd like to know what the consensus is for the two different styles of ridge helmet? Is it just Type 1 and Type 2?

[markusaurelius]

The Deurne-Berkasovo-Type helmet is first and foremost a Ridge helmet. It can be broken down into two variants.

Variant 1 was also a ridge helmet, but had more than two halves (such as the Jeweled Berkasovo helmet, or Leiden example)

Variant 2 had only two halves and commonly had a base ring. The base ring being the around the helmet which had the nasal and two halves riveted to it.

There are examples without a base ring, such as the Augsburg or Iatrus helmet and arguably fall in a later progression of the helmet when their quality began to lower and they became "simpler". The nasal sections for those helmets were riveted directly to the two bowl halves.

[Urselius]

I think that the Romans did not use the same level of 'patterning' as is found in recent military equipment. That is, a universal type of weapon, or other piece of equipment, being adopted at one time and being replaced by another type at a later time. I suspect that fabricae and individual armourers - they must have existed if only to cater for officers - worked from a repertoire of elements available for the construction of helmets - two piece skulls, 6 piece skulls, nasals, base rings, silver sheathing (if they were responsible for decoration) etc. - and used them at their own discretion, at the direction of the official responsible for procuring new helmets, or, in the case of officers, from the specifications of their clients.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Deurne-Berkasovo-Type helmet is first and foremost a Ridge helmet. It can be broken down into two variants.

Variant 1 was also a ridge helmet, but had more than two halves (such as the Jeweled Berkasovo helmet, or Leiden example)

Variant 2 had only two halves and commonly had a base ring. The base ring being the around the helmet which had the nasal and two halves riveted to it.

There are examples without a base ring, such as the Augsburg or Iatrus helmet and arguably fall in a later progression of the helmet when their quality began to lower and they became "simpler". The nasal sections for those helmets were riveted directly to the two bowl halves.

Basically what I'm asking is what do scholars call the two different kinds (4-piece bowls and 2-piece bowls, or Berkasovo, Deurne, Koblenz, Concesti, Iatrus, Heteny, Burgh Castle, etc. and then Intercisa, Worms, Augst, Richborough, River Maas, Carnuntum, etc.)

I have seen the 4-piece bowl style just generally called the "Berkasovo-Type," which pretty much almost always had a base ring (except in the augsburg example which had two reconstructions both with and without a base ring), and they had larger cheekpieces.

I have seen the 2-piece bowl style just generally called the "Intercisa-Type," which pretty much did not have a base-ring (except the worms and I think Intercisa-III helmets) and had smaller cheekpieces.

So what is the consensus? 4-piece and 2-piece? Berkasovo-Type and Intercisa-Type?

I myself have thought maybe going in line with earlier helmet conventions and calling the 2-piece bowls the "Pannonic" (like Imperial Gallic or Italic") type simply because there were just a boatload of them found there, and frankly wouldn't be surprised if they originated in Pannonia.

[Urselius]

Precisely my point. You can have two types based on skull construction and put all other elements down to minor variations on a theme, or you can call every minor variant its own type.

Personally I would go with basic skull construction as the basis of classification. After all the Deurne helmet is functionally more like the Deir el-Medina spangenhelm below the brow-band than it is to most of the Intercisa types, but the skull construction is the deciding factor here.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I always classified them by their skull construction, but I never called them 'four-piece' and 'two-piece' (I used the names of finds to describe their skull construction.)

So we're just calling them 'Four-Piece' and 'Two-Piece' then? Alright, I guess that sounds good to me, if somewhat of an awkard name.

[Urselius]

I would go for two part skulls on one side, and multi-part skulls on the other - as the basic division.

Of course the numbering system ignores the ridge as being part of the skull and the brow-band, if any. Personally, because the central element of both skull halves in many multi-part skulls is very wide I would call what most people term "four part skulls" "six part skulls" - but that's just me being a little literal.

[markusaurelius]

Maybe you miss read my post. That is what scholars call them. Deurne-Berkasovo ridge helmet. Their typology is split between variant I and II as indicated above.

The other category is the Intercisa helmet with the distinctive cheek pieces.

Much like calling an earlier helmet the imperial Gallic.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Thanks Markus, I want to get the terminology right for my book (I briefly cover Roman, Barbarian, and Hunnic gear in their respective chapters).

[Urselius]

Not everyone who publishes on the subject is reading from the same hymn sheet. There are national differences in nomenclature and also 'lumpers' and 'splitters' - is there a universal system?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I'm going to just say "The Intercisa-Type is a classification of ridge helmets referring to ones made of a bipartate bow, while the Berkasovo-Type is a classification referring to those made with a quadripartate bowl. The Classifications are named after distinct finds of each style of ridge helmet, respective to their bowl construction."

How's that sound?

[Urselius]

Yes, I think the simpler the better.

[Robert Vermaat]

Some scholars refer to all the ridge helmets as 'Intercisa' types, no matter our current distinction between berakasovo and Intercisa types: Kocsis, László (2000): Helme vom Typ "Intercisa" in Pannonien, in: Visy, Zsolt (ed.) (2000): Von Augustus bis Attila, leben am Ungarnischen Donaulimes, (Limesmuseum Aalen), pp. 37-40.

For me it's the nasal, base ring and cheek plates that makes the difference. I think most scholars do that, no matter the problem that there certainly are hybrids.

Berkasovo type helmets have a base ring, hinged larger cheek plates and a nasal.
Intercisa type helmets have no base ring but leather edging, no nasal, simple cheek plates without hinges.
But the Berkasovo II helmet (not the jewelled one) has a bipartate bowl, yet it has managed to become the name-giver to the type clas. The other contender being the Burgh Castle helmet, which is also bipartate..
And some Intercisa helmets have a base ring, and some have a nsal, and some have larger cheek plates (but no base ring).

As mentioned earlier, the Romans almost certainly did not use typology as we do. Whereas we love to classify objects into groups and attach all sorts of explanations to that, especially with the intent to make predictions etc. (THIS type for cavalry, THAT type for infantry, etc.), it seems the Romans did not do so.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Burgh Castle Helmet had a quadripartite bowl.

(Pic of the find on top of an early reconstruction)
http://www.durolitum.co.uk/articles/helm...castle.jpg

As far as I can tell, the Berkasovo II and the Sirmium helmets had Bipartite bowls.

The Intercisa Helmets: Both early and later reconstructions.

http://late-roman-empire.ru/_ph/7/344419009.jpg

From left to right: 4, 1, 2, 3. The original intercisa III may have had a base ring, which they interpreted as part of the helmet bowl itself. The intercisa IV is missing a ridge in its early and later reconstruction, so they sort of superglued the crest onto it or something.

The Worms helmet had a 1/2 base ring.

[Robert Vermaat]

The Burgh Castle Helmet had a quadripartite bowl.

My bad, you are correct, I now recall that I have even seen it reconstructed as an Intercisa-type (in Dan Shadrakes book).

(Pic of the find on top of an early reconstruction)
http://www.durolitum.co.uk/articles/helm...castle.jpg

Indeed- that's the one! Intercisa-cheek plates but with a nasal.

The Intercisa Helmets: Both early and later reconstructions.
http://late-roman-empire.ru/_ph/7/344419009.jpg

From left to right: 4, 1, 2, 3. The original intercisa III may have had a base ring, which they interpreted as part of the helmet bowl itself. The intercisa IV is missing a ridge in its early and later reconstruction, so they sort of superglued the crest onto it or something.
The Worms helmet had a 1/2 base ring.[/quote]
As far as I know, none of the helmets found at Intercisa had a base ring, and I (indeed) only know the Worms to be an exception to the 'rule'. Intecisa helmets have holes all around the bottom of the bowl, which indicates leather edging, instead of a base ring.