Italic D: First or second century?

[mcbishop]

the question becomes even more critical: Is this a First Century or Second Century helmet? Any further thoughts?

Ummm, why 'more critical'? The longevity of helmets in Roman service means it could easily have seen service in both the 1st and 2nd centuries. FWIW my gut feeling (and there is no archaeological evidence I am aware of that will directly confirm or gainsay this) is that it is mid-1st century and certainly not 2nd century given the similarity in overall form to attested 1st-century infantry helmets and the absence of cross-piece reinforces BUT (and this is, of course a very big 'but') one can cite later helmets (Theilenhofen for starters) that date to a later period but appear not to conform (assuming Theilenhofen is not an old helmet when lost!).

Arguments tend to swirl around Robinson's typologies and lose sight of the essential fact that typologies are a tool for analysis of a body of data and are never infallible. All sorts of subjective criteria went into Robinson's original classification of these helmets that were quite separate from the original maker's intentions, desires, and dreams (and, more importantly his influences and those of the subsequent helmets derived from it: were there tens, hundreds, thousands? We don't know).

So, you could probably find helmets like this in the 1st century, possibly even some in the 2nd century, but to be dogmatic and say that it is a '1st century' or '2nd century' helmet is running the risk of seeing equipment in a way that no Roman would ever have shared. Is it a serviceable helmet? Yes, okay I'll use it.

Anybody remember spotting M10 tank destroyers on the news a few years back in the recent Balkan unpleasantnesses? Those were WW2 AFVs being used 50 years after they were designed.

Mike Bishop

[Arahne]

To be more precise same caps (identical design) that partisans used in WWII had soldiers in regular army engaged in Balkan civil war in the 90-ies.

[Gaius Honorius Felix]

The helmet could have been passed down, I dont see why not. So its possible it appeared in the 2nd century. You could take the as an example the B-52 in the US military; It's been in service for 50 years and there is no intention of building more or fazeing them out. So back to my point the helmet could have been used for a long strech. If it works why replace it.

[drsrob]

This discussion has been held before in 2002 between me and Dan. The thread still exists on Ezboard, but has not been copied to RAT2 for some reason.
link: Robinson's Classification of the Itallic D

During this discussion I did some checking up.

I've found some information on the subject, to wit:
(1) H. Schoppa, Die Funde aus dem Vicus des Steinkastells Hofheim. I. Keramik außer Terra Sigillata. Veröffentlichungen des Landesambtes für kulturgeschichtliche Bodenaltertümer, Wiesbaden 1961.
(2) H. Schoppa, Die römische Kaiserzeit. Sammlung nassauischer Altertümer Wiesbaden städtisches Museum, Scriften des städtischen Museums Wiesbaden Nr. 6, Wiesbaden 1967.
(3) G. Waurick, "Die römische Kastelle und der Vicus in Hofheim", in D. Baatz, Hochtaunus, Bad Homburg, Usingen, Köningstein, Hofheim (Mainz 1974) pp. 228-236.
(4) H. Schoppa, Fundberichte aus Hesse 5-6 (1965-66) 146 ff.

As has already been stated Robinson used his dating of the 'D' on the assumption that it and other equipment was lost on a ferry. In the eighties the Roman's built a bridge over the Rhine, so all these finds had to date from before ca. AD 83-86. Today most researchers agree that they were mostly votive offerings. Thus they could date much later.

The date is however supported by the find of the Imperial Italic E in a fort at Hofheim. Following information from the excavator, Hoffa, Robinson dated it to AD 100 at the latest and suggested it might have been older, as it was stripped of it's fittings and therefore discarded, making it an old helmet.

In this reasoning several assumptions are obvious. These are:

• that it was stripped
  that it was discarded
  that it was old at the time

However the date is an assumption to. According to his own wording Robinson was told this verbally or in a letter, while publications by Schoppa tell a different story.

The helmet was not found within the fort, but rather in the settlement adjacent to it, referred to as the vicus (3, p. 235). Schoppa (1, pp. 5-6; 2 pp. 5 & 51-52 and 4) says that the fort at Hofheim was built under Vespasian and destroyed during the revolt of Saturninus in AD 88/89. It was rebuilt in stone in AD 90 and abandoned under Hadrian in ca. AD 121/122. Next to it was a settlement (vicus) which has the same two periods of building activity. The helmet was found in a cellar, belonging to the second period. That means that it was left behind when the fort was abandoned, i.e. AD 121.
However, Waurick (3, p. 235) states that it is not at all clear whether the fort was not abandoned later or whether the vicus was abandoned at the same time as the fort. Although most finds that are datable can be dated to the late 1st or early 2nd century AD, coins have been found dated as late as the 3rd century!

In the light of this I can't believe that Schoppa told Robinson that the helmet was found in a layer that could be dated to AD 100 (Robinson's words).
I think, and now I'm speculating, that Robinson asked something in the nature of how early the helmet could have gotten there. Assuming the helmet would not have been stored in the cellar directly after it was build, AD 100 would have been a reasonable answer to that question.
However that may be, I think it's fairly certain that Robinson asked the wrong question, because if he had asked when was the helmet abandoned, Schoppa would have said: AD 121, because that's when he thought the cellar was abandoned.
One can say: "The helmet was stored earlier and forgotten." But that's pure speculation and something that can't be proven archaeologically.
Unfortunately neither Robinson, nor Schoppa can be asked about this as they're both dead (Schoppa died about 1980)

As stated above a later studie suggests that the fort might have remained in use after AD 122, and the vicus even longer than the fort. So the helmet was left behind in AD 121 or later.

The Imperial Italic type H, I would date to the later 2nd Century AD. It evolved into what Robinson called the Auxiliary cavalry type H in the 3rd Century.

On the subject of stripping. Most of the mountings were stripped, but not all; the bronze edge binding was left on. If the other mountings were bronze to, this is strange. Therefore I think that the other mountings were silver as on the Niedermörmter helmet and an Auxiliary Cavalry type H from Nijmegen.

[Robert Vermaat]

This discussion has been held before in 2002 between me and Dan. The thread still exists on Ezboard, but has not been copied to RAT2 for some reason.
link: Robinson's Classification of the Itallic D

Indeed, which is very strange. Jasper?

[Praefectusclassis]

Odd...I have no explanation ànd I can say that the old Mil Hist forum has been imported ànd that we won't do it again, because it will cause a horrible muddle and doubling with the risk of deleting newer threads. We'll just have to run the risk of walking the beaten path.

[drsrob]

Well, I saved this and three other threads on my own PC, removing ezboard links, so it will survive

[FlaviusCrispus]

First off, thanks, everyone, for chiming in on this issue!

MC Bishop wrote:

Ummm, why 'more critical'? The longevity of helmets in Roman service means it could easily have seen service in both the 1st and 2nd centuries.

OK, not "critical," except maybe for my own reenactment unit, Legio VI VIctrix (CA). We portray a Hadrianic-era legion and have something of an ongoing debate as to whether we should have only one or two examples of this helmet in our ranks, or whether it should be a widely used alternative to our "preferred" helmet, the Italic G. Until now, we've always "punted" by saying the Deepeeka Italic D had a few accuracy problems and best stay clear of it, buit now that they've corrected most of these problems, it could be a viable alternative. Besides, it's pretty and maybe I want one...

The issue also arose in my head after I had a chance to look at the Guttmann "Italic H" helmet up close and personal. It struck me that this helmet was very similar to the Italic D in its method of construction (iron skull with applied broad brass strip "cross guards," the appearence of the carrying handle, etc.), although it definitely shows signs of evolutionary development. Since the Neidermormter and Guttmann helmets are widely thought to be late second or early third century helmets, the question to me is, do they represent 100-120 years of evolution over the Italic D, as would be the case if it was a mid-first century helmet, or more like 30-50 years, if the D dated to the early second century. To me, the latter seemed more likely. Then I came across the "evolutionary chart" in Antike Helm, which placed the D in the early second century, and my curiosity was peaked further. So I started wondering on what Robinson had based his mid-first century dating.

(A third possibility is that the D is indeed mid-first century and both the Neidermormter and Guttmann helmets are much earlier than previously thought, say, second quarter of the second century. But that would be a whole new can of worms...)

DSRob—

Thanks for all that valuable info and the link to the earlier discussion! Your thoughts on how the Italic E helmet might have been misdated are also very intriguing. It hadn't occurred to me that the Italic D might actually be a LATER helmet than the Italic G (Hebron) helmet, but your reasoning seems very sound. I shall have to ponder it very carefully...

[jho]

Hello everybody,

I am new to this forum. The following additional information may be of interest for the dating of the Imperial Italic D helmet:

The Krefeld helmet (now kept in the musuem Burg Linn) appears to be very similar to the known specimen except that it replaces the eagles on the front side with cut copper alloy EYES (not eye brows). To my knowledge this is one of only two early imperial helmet with eyes instead of brows (the other one being at Wiesbaden).

The helmet was found together with a cut back Weisenau type helmet (similar to the one I believe was found in Nijmegen) trampled into a ditch of the extensive field fortifications found in Krefeld-Gellep. I am not aware that the helmet has been fully published yet, however, the excavators believe that the find spot was the place of the battle at Gelduba reported in Tacitus and the re-worked Weisenau helmet belonged to a Batavian auxiliary and the imperial D to a Roman legionary.

To my recollection there were also a lot of minor finds accompanying the helmets such as brooches which should make the dating fairly secure. The lay out of the fortifications would generally fit the description in Tacitus and one may speculate that both known helmets may have belonged to the same legion stationed in Moguntiacum.

You may also be aware that another very similar helmet was found in North Africa and dated I believe to the early third century but I assume that the dating was for typological reasons only.

[Tarbicus]

Hello everybody,

I am new to this forum. The following additional information may be of interest for the dating of the Imperial Italic D helmet:

The Krefeld helmet (now kept in the musuem Burg Linn) appears to be very similar to the known specimen except that it replaces the eagles on the front side with cut copper alloy EYES (not eye brows). To my knowledge this is one of only two early imperial helmet with eyes instead of brows (the other one being at Wiesbaden).

Yes! Thanks!

And as someone's only going to say it anyway, any chance of signing your posts with at least your real first name? Welcome aboard.

[jho]

Oops, sorry, how impolite of me.

my name is Jens Horstkotte from Munich, Germany

[Tarbicus]

Thanks Jens, not impolite at all. So in short, there are eagles, temples, moons, birds, mice, and now eyes, on helmets. What else is there on infantry helmets, as appliques not embossment, anyone?

The eyes though would have been a very spooky thing to be faced with, I imagine.

[Celer]

Salve Jens,

I only had a very blurry photograph of the Krefeldt helmet, and even that is now gone. Is there any chance of you emailing me a new one and I would like to have a new one made (my last helmet having being vandalised :evil: ).

Vale

Celer.

[jho]

I am afraid that I do not have a photo, I did not have my camera with me when I visited the museum. I only have a scetch I made which I can scan and post some time this week (if I manage to find it).

[Celer]

Salve Jens,

Anything would be a help right now. Many thanks,

Celer.