Late Roman iron helmet

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

In a past post, i have yet prevent to that point: we are'nt sure it was a authentic helmet, so we ca'nt get any archaeological information or use it as a paralel. Sorry!

Perhaps, some kind of metalographic analysi could reveal the autenticity of the helmet, but it's out of the cientific reach, so probably we'll never know if it's a real roman thing.

I agree with Crispus. Navigating by internet detectorists shops, we can think a high percentatge of the stuff are roman style, but not authentic.

[aitor iriarte]

Well, in my opinion, the forger should have been a very competent armourer and have behind him a very competent expert on late Roman helmets, too much! :wink: . Moreover, the patina looks convincing, though I must acknowledge that a small pic is not the same thing than holding the actual helmet in your hands... :?

Aitor

[Daniel S Peterson]

I understand there have been some x rays and other close scrutiny and in all liklihood it is original.

As for Deepeeka making it, they are not too keen about more late Roman projects as there is only a fraction of interest compared to the earlier models. This may change as more and more people become interested in this period, but the sales are still slow for them. However, every time I go there I try to have a few special helmets made to add to the collection, and I would do this one if I could see a back shot of it. I have nearly 50 different Roman helmet reconstructions now, there was about 45 in the Vitoriano-Rome exhibit.

The Balkan plundering is a two edged sword. Yes, it is too bad these objects are not being properly excavated in context and published in scientific journals, but on the other hand, we now have knowledge of something close to 50 new helmets from that region since the turmoil there, and many other significant finds that otherwise would probably have never been brought to life in our lifetimes.

You cannot stop the treasure hunters short of execution. It is too irresistable a passion for them, particularly in poor countries. The intelligent solution wouuld be to allow the practice with archaological supervision, much like in Great Britain. If the detectorists knew they would still be paid for their finds, many would work with the archaeologists and report their finds.

[Robert Vermaat]

The Balkan plundering is a two edged sword. Yes, it is too bad these objects are not being properly excavated in context and published in scientific journals, but on the other hand, we now have knowledge of something close to 50 new helmets from that region since the turmoil there, and many other significant finds that otherwise would probably have never been brought to life in our lifetimes.

I agree up to a point. Sure, we know of many more pices. And adding to that, we may have to hurry with metal objects in the soil. But apart from that, we are robbed of the context, and since all archaeologists know of the pitfalls of 'development determination', that loss of context means a loss of absolute dating. We will never know if this helemt is indeed a hybrid between the Deir el Medineh and the Berkasovo types, or a later backdrop due to a personal design. Never.

You cannot stop the treasure hunters short of execution. It is too irresistable a passion for them, particularly in poor countries. The intelligent solution wouuld be to allow the practice with archaological supervision, much like in Great Britain. If the detectorists knew they would still be paid for their finds, many would work with the archaeologists and report their finds.

I agree. Yes, the PAS system seems a very good system, even though I daily read passionate disccusions between MD's and archaeologists debating it.

Archaeology should be receiving much more funding!!!

[ushumgal]

Regarding illegal excavations, I would also like to point out that, in addition to removing the object from its archaeological context (which not only inhibits precise dating, but destroys any potentially valuable information that could be gleaned about usage, etc.), but looters are looking for artifacts that they can sell for a big profit on the black market. An artifact that may be of supreme importance for historians/archaeologists may well be discarded by the looter because it is damaged, or too prosaic to fetch much money. For example, in much of the looting that has happened in ancient sites in Iraq (my area of speciality) since the first Gulf War, looters routinely discard broken tablets, as only relatively complete ones are marketable to collectors. But specialists can make very good use of broken tablets - even the smallest fragment can fill a gap in an existing tablet or canonical composition (like Gilgamesh or Enuma Elish), or provide useful information in its own right. With metal objects, the problem is the same: if, for example, a looter found the iron helmets at Nineveh which Layard found in the late 1840s, they would certainly have been discarded, as it was a couple handfuls of rusty fragments. But John Carter at the British Museum was able to determine what they were (fragments of several crested helmets, of a type frequently depicted on reliefs) and even make a very accurate reconstruction of one of them.

I can understand the eagerness to see new types of armor - I would personally love to see a complete set of Hellenistic manicae excataved - but one should always recognize that for every new piece of armor that appears on the black market from illegal excavations, ten more are discarded by the looters because of their condition. Consider, for example, that most of our lorica segmentata finds would have been tossed, because they don't look like much in their rusty and dis-articulated condition when found.

Ok, I'll stop ranting now...

Best regards,
Jamie Szudy
LU2.DUB.SAR
http://jamie-in-vienna.blogspot.com/

[tlclark]

Regarding Forgeries:

Since the helmet is so atypical, I would not immediately look at it suspciously. Usually the forgers are better historians than you can imagine. The second a genuine find is documented we see a glut of very similar forgeries. In terms of Roman and Greek Sculpture, every time a new unique find is discovered, suddenly there are tons of nearly identical examples on the art market, most coming out of schools in Italy, where students routinely make "reproductions" that are quickly sold to enthusiasts who lose the provenance of the reproduction. I know that the art students making these things know for a fact that the objects will later be pawned off as the real thing, but they are insulated from any wrongdoing since the first sale was as a "reproduction". They are very clever. There's practically a underground industry in these things.

From what I gather, this helmet doesn't fit the pattern.

This helmet seems to be a rather unique find, which is hard sell for a forger making for the collector's market - IMO. What we need to see is how many more come up on the market in the next two years.

[Robert Vermaat]

From what I gather, this helmet doesn't fit the pattern.

You're right of course, but if a forger wanted to make a bundle, they might try and go for something unique. I'm not saying this helmet is a fake, but on the one hand it is unique, while on the other hand it's not something never seen before. Actually, a forger could easily manufacture parts from known helmets and assemble them into a 'new' helmet, thereby ceating a sought-after unique object.

[DAN OF BRITANNIA]

Only just logged into this thread... looks like a wonderful transitional item spanning a gap (if genuine).

It has a very functional appearance, no frills, I like that in armour, it seems credible, if it is a fake I think the 'faker' obviously knows a thing or two about Later Roman headgear... it has an interesting missing puzzle piece feel. (The single hinge suspension of the cheekguards is indeed reminiscent of the Der-el-Medineh helmet)

One has always to weigh up the time, materials and expertise spent on a project like this against what a good forger would expect to earn for producing it... not to mention the credibility of the person selling it and indeed valuing/authenticating the item.

Reminds me slightly of the discussions that the recent Pioneer Helmet find (1998) caused amongst those passionate about late 1st Millennia Saxon helmet design, mind you, that had the credibility of being excavated.

Any other data on it?

(Wonder whose cupboard it's been sitting in all these centuries? Mind you, I think some things never do go into the ground, they are just passed down, looted, sold and passed down again, for some items that's a story in itself).

[Conal]

For those who have commented about wishing they had the money to buy this helmet, a friend of mine bought another, yet unpublished one at an incredibly cheap price at the Stuttgart coin show. The dealer dealt in Roman things, but had no idea it was Roman. In is in the USA now, and I hope to get photos soon.

"Insider" info strongly suggests the helmet discussed now is a very recent find from the balkans, as are so many newly offered helmets. The "been in private collection since the 1970's" ploy is often used in these circumstances to deflect the obvious fact that it is modern "loot" taken from archaological sites that can no longer be protected due to the chaos in that region.

Any news on your friends helmet ?