10-24-2010, 07:08 AM
Been thinking (always a dangerous thing) and I think there may be circumstantial proof for wider crests than the intercisa fins. Look at this chi rho helmet crest front. That rivet attachment would not be for a thin fin but a wider wooden or metal crest.
I'm not arguing though that chi rhos were not also attached to Intercisa fins - look at the top left Chi rho attachment in the drawing below. Heres what that would look like.
So- my theory is that these chirhos can be used to get the right width and height of a late Roman crest holder and were attached by riveting to a wider crest holder in materials that have now perished (i.e. wood or iron).
Perhaps looking something like this, with the crest simpler, squarer but the same dimensions as the chi rho?
Or this Constantine coin?
The crest holder/ box could be of wood or metal- who knows. But if we follow these dimensions we may not go far wrong- what do you think?
I'm not arguing though that chi rhos were not also attached to Intercisa fins - look at the top left Chi rho attachment in the drawing below. Heres what that would look like.
So- my theory is that these chirhos can be used to get the right width and height of a late Roman crest holder and were attached by riveting to a wider crest holder in materials that have now perished (i.e. wood or iron).
Perhaps looking something like this, with the crest simpler, squarer but the same dimensions as the chi rho?
Or this Constantine coin?
The crest holder/ box could be of wood or metal- who knows. But if we follow these dimensions we may not go far wrong- what do you think?