Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Helmet from Sivac, Serbia
Hi folks,
sorry if it is all known to you, but do we have this helmet in the database?
I just wondered...

edit: sorry for the wrong category - perhaps someone could correct that?
noxia /Suzi

It is actually in the database as Auxiliary cavalry ACE 07 (Belgrade), but your link contains good pictures and interesting additional information.

It is interesting to see that it actually appears to be in the Museum of Sombor, not Belgrade. The publication mentioned in the link appears to be:

Vujovic, Miroslav
Rimski slem iz Sivca
Roman Helmet from Sivac
Verlag: Gradski muzej (Sombor), 2008
Sprache: Serbisch
Kyrillische Schrift, Illustriert
Broschur, 84 Seiten, Format: 210 x 270 mm
ISBN 86-911883-7

but it is in Serbian.

If any RATer speaks Serbian and has access, it would be great to know what they make of the helmet and its inscription because this is a fascinating helmet with an interesting inscription and the original publication (Velenrajter, P. 1978-79: 'A Roman helmet with an inscription found at Sivac', Grada za proucavanje spomenika kulture Vojvodine 8-9, 17-20) is rather short.

Finally, observers should be aware that, at least based on the original publication, the brow and skull reinforcements appear to be modern reconstructions or an amalgam with other finds because Velenrajter's photos do not show these.

Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
I think it was only for 3 month in Sombor, after that it was on display in Belgrad, gradski muzej and vojni muzej.
But where it is kept now, i could not make out.

Anyway, i ordered the book, and then we will know better hopefully...
noxia /Suzi
I could not resist and actually ordered it myself. I was positively surprised to find that the publication is bilingual. A short summary follows:

The helmet was turned up by ploughing. It is made of copper alloy (bronze with 5-6% tin). The surface shows traces of having been tinned. Otherwise the surface and the workmanship in general are rather rough (many hammer and chisel marks). The damage to the bowl was inflicted from the inside so was probably caused from ploughing when it was in the ground rather than battle when in active use. The crossed reinforcements and the peak are missing (those exhibited are modern additions) but their existence is proven not only by respective rivet holes but also by traces on the helmet surface in the form of thin lines in the lighter reddish original bronze color which stand out against the darker, formerly tinned areas of the helmet surface. Scientific anaylsis has shown corrosion products along these lines which may indicate that the crossed reinforcements were originally from iron rather than bronze.

The guards for the ears have been forced out from the sides of the helmet bowl. The two cheek guards are secured beneath the chin by means of two sets of holes: The left cheek piece had two circular holes and the right one a circular hole and a large rectangular opening. Vujovic believes that the right piece overlapped the left and was secured by a presumed longish turning rivet in the upper hole of the left, the role of the lower holes is unknown.

The depth of the helmet is more shallow than other specimens of this type and the cheekpieces more curved. The appearance of the helmet is therefore closer to earlier helmet types and in facts resembles Peter Connolly’s reconstruction of the Florence helmet (except that the cheek pieces are wider and overlap).

The neck guard carried a punched inscription: „> - IIII - IVL / M - I - [L/E]VC“.

Velenrajter translated this as: "C(ohors) quarta IVL(iana) M(anipulus) I. LVC(ii).“. However Vujovic correctly identifies the second part as the name of the owner "M(arcus) I(ulius) EVC(...)“ and believes that the cognomen was of Greek type (Eucarpus or Eucharis or similar).

The first letter is clearly the inverted „C“ for Centuria. Therefore Vujovic prefers the reading: „C(enturia) IIII IVL(ii)“ for the first line.

Not being an epigraphist, my own additional observation is this: If the „IIII“ behind the sign for century is actually a numeral, this would accord with a formula known predominantly for legio II Parthica and field army vexillations to name centuries not after the centurion but by cohors and place in the battle line (Speidel, Roman Army Studies II, pp. 21). However, in this case one would expect something like „pilus“ „hastatus“ or „princeps“ to follow (the formula is „>“ followed by the numeral of the cohors followed by the rank of the centurion, e.g. hastatus posterior). In this case „IVL(ius)“ appears fairly certain. Therefore the IIII may actually also represent part of a name, e.g. „ C(enturia) TITI(?) IVL(II) / M(arcus) I(ulius) EVC(...)“ or similar. One of the photos in Vujovic appear to show at least one, possibly two additional dots which would make the first „I“ a „T“ ("TIII").

Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
here is a little update.
I found a link for a free PDF-download of the publication, also in english:
noxia /Suzi

Forum Jump: