A New Helmet

[Crispvs]

Sorry Nathan, I edited the post again but owing to a painfully slow internet connection, it took me nearly 20 minutes to post it up, so missed your reply.

I wonder how much the students knew about Roman helmets. That decoration looks too much like the decorations on the Hebron helmet and the fragment from Vindolanda to make me comfortable with the idea that the shape is a co-incidence. I wonder if the students saw there was just one and so concluded that it must be a repair covering a hole, rather than considering the possibility that there had originally been three more soldered on which had since disappeared.

Crispvs

[Nathan Ross]

That decoration looks too much like the decorations on the Hebron helmet and the fragment from Vindolanda to make me comfortable with the idea that the shape is a co-incidence.

Indeed, although I wondered whether the shape itself is the product of a restoration which was looking too closely at the Hebron helmet... but these are things we cannot know.

If the lunar shape is a genuine decoration though... wouldn't this example virtually collapse the distinction between the 'Gallic' and 'Italic' families of helmet altogether? :eek:

[caiusbeerquitius]

However, see also Jens Horskotte's post from further down that page, suggesting an AD69 date for the Krefeld Italic D...

Ah, yes, but this is all very speculative. My thought of course only makes sense if the crossbar-decoration came after the crossbars. (which must not necessarily be the case). The dating for those to the Dacian wars relies on Trajan´s Column, I think. Difficult, as usual.
As it is, we really need more context. There are all kinds of possibilities for dating, but the number of safely dated helmets is really small, unfortunately. We indeed might get some serious surprises with new finds with safe dating.

[Agin]

If the lunar shape is a genuine decoration though... wouldn't this example virtually collapse the distinction between the 'Gallic' and 'Italic' families of helmet altogether? :eek:

Is there any evidence for gallic and italic helmets having been used side-by-side? Please pardon me if the answer to this question is obvious, or well-known. I am quite new here))
I'm curious if it represents more of a transitionary style of helmet, with gallic evolving into the italic, or more of a cross-over between the designs.

[Sextus Saturninus]

They were totally used together. They both share the same time period. The only difference is their classification but some of that is messed up anyway...

R. Robinson came to the conclusion that Italic helmets were made in Italy while Gallic ones were made in Gaul ( modern day France ). Italic helmets had no eyebrows ( but the Italic B did - another reason why Robinson had it wrong ) and were supposedly crudely made ( not true! ). Gallic ones had eyebrows and rosettes.

Some scholars use Weisenau classifications instead, a system I am starting to switch over to.

[ANTONIVS MAGNVS]

Not exactly...

[M.VAL.BRUTUS]

R. Robinson came to the conclusion that Italic helmets were made in Italy while Gallic ones were made in Gaul ( modern day France ). Italic helmets had no eyebrows ( but the Italic B did - another reason why Robinson had it wrong ) and were supposedly crudely made ( not true! ). Gallic ones had eyebrows and rosettes..

Did one of the italic D's also have "eyebrows"... There are a lot other variations in styles between italic and Gallic Helmets. Personally I think it best not to try to rigidly classify helmets by type, but rather by location of the find and it's dating. If you try to make rigid typologies, you end up trying to force helmets into one of the categories, either ignoring details or making assumptions about details that aren't present.

[Gaius Colletti]

Brandon, the Krefeld Italic D had decorative brass applied that resembled eyebrows