Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
a new Imperial Gallic \"I\" helmet
#1
Hello guys,
I want to let you know a new (and imho up to now unknow) imperial gallic "I".

Is very interesting because its main feature is being extremely similar to the Aquincum one, they are quite twins, so much that I'm pretty confident it is from the same workshop, although from different hands.

General shape and most of the features are quite identic, only some small ones are different.
More or less, diameter of the bowl is around 19 cm, high 16 cm without the crest holder, neck guard is angled around 42-43°.
Since images are better than words, If you take a look at the attached photos, you can easily see all features of the Aquincum one.

The general condition is very good, perhaps better than the Aquincum one (about this we have to take in mind that this is heavily restored, with a large part of the bowl not original. Once found, it was broken in several pieces, further, if I remember right, the crest holder is original but not matching and a cheeckpiece is a modern reconstruction) the biggest damage is on the brow, where a 12x2 cm piece has been broken off in ancient times. Because of this, only a 6 cm long fragment of the eyebrow decorative strip is still in place (plus another small piece on the left side), provided by a separate sheet.
Plumes holders are fragmented but still recognizable.Only one cheeckpiece is surviving, still retaining the ring for the chin strap in the inner, the other one is missing, except a small fragment still attached at the helmet.
Brow band is in perfect condition, strong and undamaged.Handle on the neck guard is undamaged itself.
The main problem is a big crack on the neck guard, but I guess it can be easily repaired. Further, despite it has been found many and many years ago, it is still badly encrusted by an strong dirty layer, which must be cleaned.

All its features are very typical to the "I" specimens:
- is not in bronze but in copper alloy;
- it has a "pawn shape" crest holder. Up to my knowledge, within the imperial gallic only the "I" type has such shape of crest holder;
- it has the carry handle, very uncommon in Gallic types from A to H, but on the contrary common within I specimens. Further, it has exactly the shape showed in the Robinson book for the I types;
- no decorative studs;
- it has the plume tubes, very rare in the other imperial gallic types, but common tpo I type.
- Cheeck piece is the type showed by Robinson book for type I

Btw, in my humble opinion, is the only one existing of the Aquincum type, besides of course the one in the Budapest Museum.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
                               
Marco

Civis Romanus Optime Iure Sum
Reply
#2
Marco,

Very interesting helmet with a unique execution of the reflex bow ornament on the neck guard. Can you give us more information on the provenance of this find?
Regards,


Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Reply
#3
Finding spot is quite uncertain, Jens, I just know it is from centre-east Europe, may be Hungary or Austria, not from Bulgary.
Bow ornaments on the neck guard are not exactly reflex rather than embossed, images are deceiving.
Marco

Civis Romanus Optime Iure Sum
Reply
#4
Not to derail this topic, but that patina look identical to all the Fake uniform acid dipped patina's rife on a popular auction site selling large amount of forgeries. Sorry but I seriously question its authenticity.
Markus Aurelius Montanvs
What we do in life Echoes in Eternity

Roman Artifacts
[Image: websitepic.jpg]
Reply
#5
And this to me confirms it. Deepeeka Gallic I, an identical template of the photos. All be it prior to its "acid bath" and display.

[Image: Gallic%20I-%20fake.jpg]
Markus Aurelius Montanvs
What we do in life Echoes in Eternity

Roman Artifacts
[Image: websitepic.jpg]
Reply
#6
I understand what you mean, but the helmet is obviously original, otherwise I didn't put it over RAT. What you are seeing is not the patina of the surface but the overstanding encroustation. To see the patina beneath, you can enlarge pic 2.jpg. Look above all where the ear protection is broken, you can see the original patina.
I'm not surprise the deepeka is identical simply because is a copy of the Aquincum, which is -as I said- very very close to this I'm showing.
Marco

Civis Romanus Optime Iure Sum
Reply
#7
There are some features of the "original" that are not the same on the Deepeeka helmet. Althought small, not made by them IMHO.
"You have to laugh at life or else what are you going to laugh at?" (Joseph Rosen)


Paolo
Reply
#8
marcos, Iam just to trying clarify tings:

Where is it now?
Do you have any information on when it was found? and by whom? how did it get to where it is now?
Thomas Aagaard
Reply
#9
Sorry, but I am sure I can see weld marks on the inside where the neck guard joins the helmet!
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#10
Quote:What you are seeing is not the patina of the surface but the overstanding encroustation. To see the patina beneath, you can enlarge pic 2.jpg. Look above all where the ear protection is broken, you can see the original patina.

That to me looks like the "paint"/covering they put on the metal is flaking off. I've never seen any kind of encrustation on an original artifact looking like that (and I've handled hundreds), with the brass underneath that smooth and clean. If anything the "patina" looks identical to the these man made patinas on Fake artifacts.

http://www.collector-antiquities.com/478/

http://www.collector-antiquities.com/319/

Quote:I'm not surprise the deepeka is identical simply because is a copy of the Aquincum, which is -as I said- very very close to this I'm showing

Its not just very close. Its identical to the example you showed. The example you are presenting has every feature identical to the Deepeeka helmet. Including, but not limited to the following: Crest holder (With the same cut/slot), Cheek pieces, Eyebrow decoration, neck guard trim, neck guard handle, Base of neck ridges (x3), plum tubes, rivet sizes etc.

The Deepeeka has many errors when compared to the original Aquincum helmet. So it in fact is not a very good copy of the original Aquincum helmet.

-The original has no trim around the neck guard & a much sharper corner edge.
-The eyebrow decorations are shaped differently
-Cheek pieces have a different shape (cheep bone protrusion and chin extension), and different shaped decoration/dishing (dishing looks different, and is much closer to the bottom edge on the original.
-Crest knob shaped differently
-And last but not least. The original looks hand made. IE it has off center rivets, and other errors that are common or hand made pieces.


[Image: collection.jpg]
Markus Aurelius Montanvs
What we do in life Echoes in Eternity

Roman Artifacts
[Image: websitepic.jpg]
Reply
#11
Some pics of the original
[Image: acquincum1.jpg]
[Image: acquincum2.jpg]
[Image: acquincum3.jpg]
Markus Aurelius Montanvs
What we do in life Echoes in Eternity

Roman Artifacts
[Image: websitepic.jpg]
Reply
#12
What a photos collection, Markus, i know you handled hundreds of artifacts, we were in touch via email here and there, don't you remember Wink ? I got from you some beautiful ones, so we are almost in the some boat, I checked and restored hundreds of artifacts too.

Photos are not enough to check an artifact, as you know, so I want to tell you some more about the patina, hoping my english is enough fine.
It is not a layer, as from acid, rather than a sort of dirty, once a layer of limestone, but by now solidified as a stone. The main problem is that it is by now "welded" to the surface, if you understand what I mean, almost impossible to be removed. There was a first unprofessional attempt to clean a small point to make microscopic analysis, but it has been abruptly ended because the underheat patina were going damaged and removed togheter the encrustation. Thus now we have to look for a more professional restorer.
In "D" a view of a point of the cheeckpiece after this rough treatment. Left side before, with encrustation clearly visible, in the middle after the work, with the green patina more visible but still dirty. As you rightly expect, where the encrustaion was, although cleaned,surface is still rough and dirty.
You're right about the -supposed- strange smooth surface under the encrustation (very trained eye!), but if you deeply check you realize it is so only in those points which were covered by fittings, hence never directly in touch with dirty. Over there the patina has been naturally formed, without contamination, that is why surface is smooth and dark green.
Just as example, open and enlarge "A.jpg", that is the broken crest holder tube on the neck, you can see that inside there is not encrustation but a green smooth patina. In the same image, upper side, you also can see that sort of solidified dirty "welded" to the surface.
In C and C1 see the ring on the brow, I'm gently lifting it to let you see the surface under it, protected against encrustaion. Also note how this is thick around it, you can't touch but is as a stone.
In "E" I'm spreading the ear guard plate to let see how is the patina under it, smooth and almost clean being protected by dirty. Quite the some in "E1", see where ear guard plate was (a small fragment still remaining attached to the rivet, can you see it?) and the encrustation where it was finishing. I'm quite sure it has gone lost during digging.
In "F" cleary visible on the edge of the cheeck piece were the trim has been lost in antique times (brown color, on the left) and on the opposite where in these times (green color), the last small piece of the trim in the bottom removed by me.
So many other observations, but.....hoping my reply hasn't been boring Confusedad:


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
                       
Marco

Civis Romanus Optime Iure Sum
Reply
#13
forgetting this one, a fragment from a cheeckpiece


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Marco

Civis Romanus Optime Iure Sum
Reply
#14
What are the hinge pins made of?
Max Little
Reply
#15
mmmh...not easy answer, since XRF analisys has not still made, and this is one of the most doubtful point (I guess you mean the cheeck piece hinge). Generically speaking, the helmet is neigther bronze nor brass, but copper alloy, but those two pieces, the inner pin of the crest holder and those for the hinge of the brow band are somehow different. At a first glance they looks in iron but is not so, may appear to see rust but only the color is so, the surface is different. Just to give an idea, if you think at the pig iron manholes (if you have the same of ours), they get the rust color but , being pig iron, is not properly rust. See image 1 & 2. Impossible to say now what they are made of, may be really pig iron?
But if you are talking about the hinge for the ring of the strap of the cheeck piece ( image #3) I'm pretty confident is copper alloy itself. What is interesting in that, indicated by a red arrow, is a small groove, a sort of abrasion, made ​​by the movement of the ring, in this image clearly visible thanks to the flash.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
           
Marco

Civis Romanus Optime Iure Sum
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Imperial Gallic I Moguntiacum Marc 2 77 Yesterday, 09:26 AM
Last Post: Marc
  Imperial Gallic J - Robinson's mistake? Konstantin Ankilov 4 360 03-23-2018, 04:18 PM
Last Post: Caratacus
  Imperial Gallic D Helm Konstantin Ankilov 8 993 10-18-2017, 12:24 PM
Last Post: Konstantin Ankilov

Forum Jump: