A New Helmet

[Gaius Colletti]

Christian could you go into more detail about the dating? I have no idea what Oberaden helmet you're referring to or how that qualifies as before 16 AD?

[M.VAL.BRUTUS]

Thanks for the suggestions Brutus; they are helpful. I myself would go for the all-brass helmet. I like shiny brass mile: . I might get that one but I have still seen no proof that the Gallic H could not be around at the time so it is still an option. The Gallic H looks cool 8-)

And yes, I am 12.

Well, The truth is that we really never find evidence of something not being used in a certain time period. You'll never find anything saying something to the effect of "The Gallic H went of of circulation in the year ....." that just doesn't exist. What we find are examples of helmets that can be dated with other finds such as coins or pottery that we can identify as belonging to certain period of history, and we can usually assume that is a helmet was found in the same area with coins from the Augustan period, then it was probably in use during that period.

So, you can get the Gallic H, no one will prevent that, but do so knowing that by the time period we are portraying, that the model would be close to 100 years old.

Also, the Carnuntum helmet isn't all brass. I believe it has iron cheek guards. I'm not saying anything against the helmet, honestly I think it's a great helmet, I really like the uniqueness of the contrasting cheek guards. I just wanted to clarify that for you.

[Sextus Saturninus]

I meant all-brass helmet bowl

The Italic A helmet is off the list, as according to Christian it is a fleet helmet. I still think with all the helmets with many names on the neckguards, the H could survive. But it would be old. And if you are wondering why I like the H so much, it is the red enamel that does it

I have seen some of the Deepeeka Auxiliary helmets, but for me they are too plain with no decoration.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Theilenhofen dates to 181 AD, IIRC, meaning it was probably in use around 150-ish.

You do not remember correctly. As I wrote, the site got occupied in 189, and the helmets apparently came most probably into ground quite a while later, as the excavation report states. 150-ish certainly not with the brow guard it originally had.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Matt, this is the Oberaden helmet. It came into ground not later than 8 BC.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7161/65955...4a88_b.jpg

The Augsburg-Oberhausen helmet probably dates - like the huge majority of the other Augsburg-Oberhausen finds - to around 16 AD, if we want to assume that all the pieces from that archaeological context and this specific timeframe belong together. The finding circumstances are a bit difficult. Picture from romancoins.info

Unfortunately the helmet database is still gone.

[Gaius Colletti]

But Christian, Augsburg was a permanent Roman city for hundreds of years, why do you think the Gallic H is related to Oberdam helmet? Because they were near each other?

[caiusbeerquitius]

Hu? Where did I say that? The one helmet is from Oberaden, the other is from Augsburg-Oberhausen. One is 11-8 BC, the other quite probably 16 AD. Both dates derive from Archaeological context on each of the sites.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

This is most interesting then.
The H type has the more sloped neck guard I thought, like the second photo, but the Oberaden looks more like a G, to my eyes.
Nice to see the early dating on these...... but where is the connection to these and the late second century dates you are discussing?

[Sextus Saturninus]

Well it sounds like the Gallic H is out of time period so I would like to put forward a new helmet. It is the Gallic F produced by Deepeeka. I like it because I have heard that it looks really good on people with small heads and it appears to be fairly accurate. But I also would also be totally good with the Carnutum helmet instead. The more I look at that helmet, the more I want it. They both seem to be first century helmets from the second half of the century, dates collected with the info I can find. Is there a good chance of them surviving and being used around 130? I will be waiting for your great advice.

P.S. All replies get "thank you" if they are helpful

[Nathan Ross]

the Gallic H is out of time period so... the Gallic F

Is there any real difference between the Gallic G and F? They look like the same general sort of helmet with different decoration... :unsure: I've always assumed both of them to be mid-1st century types, but that could be my ignorance alone...

the site got occupied in 189, and the helmets apparently came most probably into ground quite a while later

As I remember (perhaps from you, Christian, or Jens), the two helmets were found in a building that had been previously destroyed by fire. Coin remains date the fire itself to c189, so the helmets must have been deposited on top of the destruction layer some time between then and the fort's evacuation in c260.

Beyond this I don't think we can be specific. Would a general date of cAD200 seem about right?

Meanwhile, on the subject of the helmets discussed in this thread, I wondered if anyone could offer more detail on the date evidence (where available) of the following, which currently seem to be the only plausible early 2nd century models:


Brigetio helmet (Gallic J) PICTURE. All I've read about this one is that it dates from 'late first century', which, as we've seen, is rather vague. Can anyone be more specific?


Carnuntum helmet PICTURE. Again, this one seems to get the general 'cAD100' treatment. Any more detail on the possible deposition or use date?


Hebron helmet (Italic G) PICTURE. The Hebron helmet is presumed to date from AD135 (Bar Kokhba). But is there not another one, very similar, from Caerleon? If I didn't imagine that, is there some idea of a date for it?

[caiusbeerquitius]

As I remember (perhaps from you, Christian, or Jens), the two helmets were found in a building that had been previously destroyed by fire. Coin remains date the fire itself to c189, so the helmets must have been deposited on top of the destruction layer some time between then and the fort's evacuation in c260.

All correct. But the dating around 200... well, it would IMO be sensible to set the date in the middle between 189 and 260 if we have no other means to go by, and if we ant to set such a date, actually. So 230-ish. Would fit to the first Alamannic invasion along the limes, then. From that time we have several weapon and armor hoard-finds, too.

*edit: The c189 is a terminus post quem, also, so one should be careful with that date, too.

[Nathan Ross]

230-ish. Would fit to the first Alamannic invasion along the limes... The c189 is a terminus post quem

Yes, indeed. I haven't seen anything about the state of the coins found (worn, new, whatever), but it's perhaps less likely that new issues would have been lost.

The invasions of the 230s would provide a neat explanation for the dumping or loss of helmets too. This also pushes the other Theilenhofen helmet into the early-mid third century as well, where it appears more comfortably to belong...

What about the other helmets mentioned above - anyone have any clues?

[PhilusEstilius]

Nathan.
The lower helmet picture according to Robinson is an Imperial Gallic type H third quarter of the 1st century from Lech, near Augsburg Maximilian museum, Augsburg, VF1053.

[Nathan Ross]

The lower helmet picture... is an Imperial Gallic type H

This one? I've always thought that was the 'Italic G' from Hebron...

[Renatus]

The lower helmet picture... is an Imperial Gallic type H

This one? I've always thought that was the 'Italic G' from Hebron...

You are right. It is shown in Plates 175-178 in Robinson's The Armour of Imperial Rome. The helmet that Brian seems to be thinking of is shown in Plates 130-133. It is in much worse condition, has no cross-braces, no surviving cheek-pieces or reinforcing peak, and has eyebrows. He may be referring to the second of the two helmets in Christian's post of about three weeks ago.