07-30-2010, 08:42 AM
Adrian,
laudes for great find!
The parallels to the Ostrova helmet are fascinating. They are so close, I hope that this does not indicate that the helmet may not be genuine.
On the archer issue:
This helmet and the Ostrova helmet share with the few true Roman "conical" helmets found to date the straight rim and the cheek pieces which neither have an "ear" like the Koblenz-Bubenheim and Niederbieber helmets nor an ear recess like the earlier infantry helmets.
With respect to the majority of conical helmets (Dahovo, Bosnia, Karaagach, Bulgaria, Breda, Netherlands, cheek piece in the Guttmann collection), I am not aware of a context which would indicate their specific use. However, the Intercisa conical helmet bears a turma inscription and may or may not be connected with coh. I mil. Hemesenorum sagitt. eq. c.R.. The helmet found in the Roman camp at Bumbesti is connected to cohors IV Cypria Civium Romanorum sagittariorum by the excavator (which was in Moesia in 107 AD in Bumbesti under Trajan and is later attested in Pantikapaion, Krech, Crimea) and therefore dated to 106-180 AD. However the association is made on the grounds of the „Oriental“ form of the helmet (as shown on Trajan's column) and therefore the association and precise dating are speculative. The camp at Bumbesti continued to exist during the 2nd and 3rd centuries and also housed Cohors I Aurelia Brittonum Milliaria and Cohors I Augusta Nervia Pacensis Brittonum milliaria at other times. The Ostrov helmet was found together with a masked helmet. Petculescu believed it to be a COMBAT helmet based on the fact that it was found together with a masked helmet and a similar pair of combat and masked helmet was found in Tell Oum Hauran. Therefore it may be speculated that it actually was a cavalry combat helmet.
Cheek pieces of this type were found in Linz and Wels in Austria. Wels was a municpium but Linz (which is the next fort from Linz) apparently housed Ala I Augusta Thracum, Cohors II Batavorum, and Ala I Pannoniorum Tampiana victrix at different times although the first two are not securely attested, so again we have a possible cavalry connection but not necessarily to archers (although we know that "normal" cavalry units also contained archers as evidenced by the famous Syrian-Batavian who swam the Danube). Another cheek piece of this type was found in Vetel, Hunedoara, Romania (Micia). The excavator believes that this cheek piece belonged to a conical helmet of an auxiliary archer, the fort a Micia was garrisoned by Ala I Hispanorum Campagonum, cohors II Flavia Commagenorum sagitt, numerus Maurorum Miciensium at different times.
Finally, I believe somebody on this forum has claimed from practical experience that a regular Roman helmet with a neck guard and deep cheek pieces makes aiming a bow difficult. It may or may not be easier with this slimmer type of cheek piece.
On balance, there are a few connections of this helmet type to units of mounted archers but not enough to draw firm conclusions.
laudes for great find!
The parallels to the Ostrova helmet are fascinating. They are so close, I hope that this does not indicate that the helmet may not be genuine.
On the archer issue:
This helmet and the Ostrova helmet share with the few true Roman "conical" helmets found to date the straight rim and the cheek pieces which neither have an "ear" like the Koblenz-Bubenheim and Niederbieber helmets nor an ear recess like the earlier infantry helmets.
With respect to the majority of conical helmets (Dahovo, Bosnia, Karaagach, Bulgaria, Breda, Netherlands, cheek piece in the Guttmann collection), I am not aware of a context which would indicate their specific use. However, the Intercisa conical helmet bears a turma inscription and may or may not be connected with coh. I mil. Hemesenorum sagitt. eq. c.R.. The helmet found in the Roman camp at Bumbesti is connected to cohors IV Cypria Civium Romanorum sagittariorum by the excavator (which was in Moesia in 107 AD in Bumbesti under Trajan and is later attested in Pantikapaion, Krech, Crimea) and therefore dated to 106-180 AD. However the association is made on the grounds of the „Oriental“ form of the helmet (as shown on Trajan's column) and therefore the association and precise dating are speculative. The camp at Bumbesti continued to exist during the 2nd and 3rd centuries and also housed Cohors I Aurelia Brittonum Milliaria and Cohors I Augusta Nervia Pacensis Brittonum milliaria at other times. The Ostrov helmet was found together with a masked helmet. Petculescu believed it to be a COMBAT helmet based on the fact that it was found together with a masked helmet and a similar pair of combat and masked helmet was found in Tell Oum Hauran. Therefore it may be speculated that it actually was a cavalry combat helmet.
Cheek pieces of this type were found in Linz and Wels in Austria. Wels was a municpium but Linz (which is the next fort from Linz) apparently housed Ala I Augusta Thracum, Cohors II Batavorum, and Ala I Pannoniorum Tampiana victrix at different times although the first two are not securely attested, so again we have a possible cavalry connection but not necessarily to archers (although we know that "normal" cavalry units also contained archers as evidenced by the famous Syrian-Batavian who swam the Danube). Another cheek piece of this type was found in Vetel, Hunedoara, Romania (Micia). The excavator believes that this cheek piece belonged to a conical helmet of an auxiliary archer, the fort a Micia was garrisoned by Ala I Hispanorum Campagonum, cohors II Flavia Commagenorum sagitt, numerus Maurorum Miciensium at different times.
Finally, I believe somebody on this forum has claimed from practical experience that a regular Roman helmet with a neck guard and deep cheek pieces makes aiming a bow difficult. It may or may not be easier with this slimmer type of cheek piece.
On balance, there are a few connections of this helmet type to units of mounted archers but not enough to draw firm conclusions.
Regards,
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
Jens Horstkotte
Munich, Germany
