Imperial-Italic D helmet:question

[Caracalla]

Hello guys,

when browsing this magnificient forum and when visiting some other sites, something strange appeare to me.
On the site of "soul of the warrior", the Imperial-Italic D helmet is situated around 200 AD, when on the site of Armae, it is situated second half of the first century AD (so, 50-100 AD).

Can someone help me out which is the right period?

Thanks,

Best,

Eve

[Lucius Poblius]

Hi Eve,

Imperial-Italic D helmet is second half of the first century AD.

You can find a good table which cross references period/found location and Robinson classification here:

http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEqui ... elmet.html

Hope that helps!

[Tarbicus]

It's not a straightforward subject. Some archaeologists put it in the 2nd C, others at the later 1st C.

Just one of those "We don't really know for sure yet" things.

Good for re-enactors in a way :wink:

[Peroni]

Robinson gave an earlier dating due to the shape and form of the helmet bowl. This is also backed-up by the type of 'slot' fitment for the crest holder typical of the earlier Italic types 'B' and 'C'.

I'm of the opinion that it dates to a later period based on the form of the decorative appliques.

The Krefeld Italic D and the Italic E had similar fittings.
The Krefeld helmet is particularly interesting as it seems to be an intermediate transition between the Italic D from Mainz and the Guttmann AG800 'mouse and loaf' Neidermoermter (Italic type 'H') which is generally accepted as early third century in date.

The Krefeld features similar temple appliques, and sheathed occiptal and brass flat cross-bands.

The krefeld also features applique components as seen on the Guttmann namely the tabula ansata and gamma shapes on the neck guard.

Cross banding

The first we see of cross banding or bracing is on the adapted Gallic type from Berzobis. Then later, we see the cross bracing being made integral to the helmet rather than as an adaption. (Thielenhofen, Brigetio and Hebron helmets). All of these helmets have cross-bands made of half-round iron bars, not flat brass decoration. The iron half-round cross-bracing would have a practical function, (head protection from the falx) whereas the flat brass woould appear to be purely decorative at best.

After the Dacian campaigns, it may have been less of a requirement for helmets to have substantial bracing, so it may have developed into the flat decorative banding seen on the Italic D, E and H types.(?) This would give a dating to the end of the first quarter of the second century.

Interestingly, the mouse and loaf decoration on the Guttman helmet can be seen on the grave stele of Praetorian soldiers. Maybe this helmet type was traditionally worn by them?

[Tarbicus]

Assuming the Niedermormter Mouse & Loaf is actually a genuine helmet.
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 410#130410

Worse has got past many an expert eye before.

[Peroni]

There are lots of helmet finds that are not provenanced, but we accept them as genuine. :wink:

Still doesn't change my opinion of the dating though!

[Tarbicus]

True What makes me go "Hmmmm..." with the M&L is its unwieldy size. It just plain ridiculous and don't make no sense, even though there's another cupric one of the same shape, at a time that just preceded helmets going in exactly the opposite direction in terms of neckguard and overall proportions.

Then again, even those two aren't alone, fragments being found of yet another. Was there more siege warfare going on then?

[Crispvs]

Hmmm... I am inclined to disagree with Junkelmann's later dating of the Mainz Italic type 'D', largley based on the form of the helmet itself, which easily fits within the range of first century shapes. The form of the copper-alloy sheathing on the occipit and the neck guard also compare well with mid-first century helmets. It should also be noted that the Hoffheim helmet (Imperial Italic type 'E') is of very similar form and was found in a midden in a level dating to around AD100 or slightly later. By the time of its deposition the Hoffheim helmet must already have been in existence for some time, and as it shows no signs of battle damage this strongly suggests that it may have been manufactured a quarter of a century or more before, placing it firmly in the first century AD. Unfortunately virtually all of the Hoffheim helmet's copper-alloy fittings had been stripped from it at the time of deposition so we cannot be sure of how much its outward decoration resembled that of the Mainz helmet.

It is true that the applied decoration on the Mainz helmet resembles that of the Guttmann helmet, but that does not mean that they necessarily mean that they have to be contemporary. The similarity of the Mainz and Krefeld helmets strongly suggests that they are contemporary and maybe even that they came from the same workshop. Their similarity of form to the Hoffheim helmet suggests a first century date. Although the applied tabulae ansatae on the Krefeld helmet are not paralelled by other first century examples, the form of decoration is hardly unknown and can clearly be seen on the Mainz Imperial Gallic type 'I'.

As to the exact chronology of the cross banding, this must remain a matter of speculation until further examples come to light which can be securely dated, but is is not beyond the realms of possibility that if the Guttmann helmet was made in the same area as the earlier Mainz and Krefeld helmets a local decorative tradition may have had a role. Incidentally, the development of cross bracing need not necessarily have been it terms of flattening out and becoming more decorative than functional. The development as I see it is exactly the opposite, with crossed re-enforcements becoming higher and more substantial, as evidenced by the re-enforcements on the 'Cavalry 'D' and 'E' helmets, as well as the Florence helmet. The earliest known examples of this form are the examples dating to the time of Marcus Aurelius found at Corbridge and Xanten. The earlier type seems to have continued contemporaniously, judging by Cavalry type 'F'. There is also the possibility that a style of helmet decoration involving crossed copper-alloy bands could have given armourers the idea for the field modification seen on the Berzobis helmet in the first place and thus given rise to crossed re-enforcements.

As a footnote though, it must still be acknowledged that Robinson commented on the similarity of the decorative technique used on the Mainz helmet to that used on some third century cavalry helmets and implied that he though it just possible that it had stayed in service for an exceptionally long time.

Now I need to know more about the Krefeld Italic 'D'. What can you tell me about the circumstances of the find frater Peronis?

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, if the guttmann was a townie, praetorian helm, wouldn't it be mostly for show(and to deflect missiles launched from above during the constant 'palace coups', or from unhappy citizens)?

also, isn't there a relief from Mainz of 2 leigionaries that show the eye or fish decoration on gallic type helms?

[Crispvs]

The legionaries on the pedestal relief from Mainz do appear to have fishes embossed onto their helmets but they do not have the cross-bracing which would make them relevant for this thread.

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

The legionaries on the pedestal relief from Mainz do appear to have fishes embossed onto their helmets but they do not have the cross-bracing which would make them relevant for this thread.

Crispvs

:oops:

[Peroni]

Now I need to know more about the Krefeld Italic 'D'. What can you tell me about the circumstances of the find frater Peronis?

Will post details from Dr Robert Fahr at the Krefeld Museum (Burg-Linn) later! :wink:

[Peroni]

OK Crispvs, here’s the info we obtained on the Krefeld Italic D variant..

To begin, here’s a rough translation of the text from the Krefeld museum homepage:

‘Roman Legionary helmets of iron with bronze plated ornaments. The helmet shows several damages, presumably caused by battle. Especially the neck shield is broken and squeezed half towards the inside. Also the cheek guards and the iron brow guard are missing. The bowl was subdivided by four strips of bronze sheet-metal, joining together cross-shaped in the centre where apparent originally was a small upper part.

The spaces between the strips were filled with two eye-shaped insets/ornaments at the front and two small temples at the back. The neck guard had plated ornaments too, featuring ‘gammas’ on both sides and a so called tabuala ansata in the centre, on which other helmets often feature the engraved name of the helmet’s wearer. In addition, two rivet holes are located there. Originally they carried two bronze eyelets and a small handle, serving as a suspension device while marching or resting.’

Dr Robert Fahr of the Burg Linn museum wrote,

“The helmet was found isolated near the Gelduba (Modern Krefeld) camp gate, without any other finds helping to date it. So it might be deposited any time and be no relic of the battle in 69 AD. The drawings in the museum differ from the Carnuntum Yearbook insofar as the museum drawings show only a scheme of the reconstructed bronze sheet-metal applications reproduced, whereas in the Carnuntum Yearbook an inventory-drawing is presented.

The inventory-drawing has been reduced in size so much that not all of the bronze applications are clearly visible. In fact, the helmet features both wrought wings (eyebrows) like the older helmets (to the inside) and raised eyes (to the outside respectively), and also bronze sheet-metal applications/fittings in the area of the eyes, as being shown by the museum drawing. Though only fragments survived on both eyes, in my opinion they allow an approximate reconstruction. No traces of enamel are visible anywhere.’

‘The Museum drawing you mentioned is a sketch and not to scale, which is designed to impart an impression to the visitor about the copper-alloy applications, they being badly preserved and therefore scarcely recognisable.

By this means the contrasts to the scale drawing in the article (Carnuntum Jahrbuch 2005) mentioned by you are to be explained. The latter you should regard as definitive, especially concerning the proportions of the helmet.

The non-ferrous metal applications on the original are barely visible, so we deliberately kept them somewhat vague in the drawing for the article and therefore apparently ommitted from the first quite clear looking impression, which the sketch at the exhibition is showing. The drawing in the article was made by a draftsman of the museum. The helmet was taken out of the display case for that.

Personally I once made a reconstruction drawing by myself. Besides at least one quite successful replica made by a re-enactor exists. (Erik König formerly of RCO. As far as I know he also used the exhibition sketch as a base.

Fahr summarises by adding...

I have to emphatically point out, that the helmet definitely does NOT originate from the find context connected to the field camps of the year 69, and therefore is not dated by context.'

(The other (modified) helmet is datable from 69) which was found in phase 1b of the camp ditch.

[rusty myers]

I just became aware of the earlier connotation a few months ago. I will change it on the website to reflect both views. Thanks Peronis

[Crispvs]

Thanks for that Peronis.

Crispvs