Login

02-04-2004, 04:31 PM

From all I read about that helmet, mostly here. It looks more like an accident than an offering. There was also a shoe, if I remember...

aitor iriarte · 02-04-2004, 08:45 PM

Antoninus (sigh! ) 
There were at least four shoes coming from three different pairs, plus one urban legend about one more shoe which Carol followed to a dead end. 
I could only examine the items in one hectic morning and, of course, I was only able to examine the helmet in some detail. 
Carol has examined all them thoroughly and has reached the conclusion that all items were wrapped in the tent panels forming a pack. The rest is only educated guess... 
 
Aitor

Uwe Bahr · 02-05-2004, 01:31 PM

Aitor, 
 
I ask for apology that I made a subject title of Your 'Aaarrrggghhh', that is now in common usage. 
 
I am still not convinced of the offering-theory. The find composition is such that each item appears only one time. It doesn't look coincidental. Every part makes a sense and in my imagination I see a rather complete cavalryman - the surplus right shoes (You know the theory from the book) may have been lost by servants or comrades who tried to rescue the - possible - accident victim. Not to forget the reported but already at that time missing tip of the spear and the bow. 
 
At an offering I would expect perhaps several swords or helmets or something like that. 
 
At all you seem to have a newer level of knowledge. For example I never read about the helmet being 'full of hair'. Is this part of a new publication by Mrs. van Driel-Murray that I don't know yet? And, were the excavations of 1910 and 1914 or 1916 (I don't remember exactly) really the last ones, has nobody since - for example with an metal detector - tried to search for more? 
 
Uwe 
 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=uwebahr>Uwe Bahr</A> at: 2/5/04 2:41 pm

aitor iriarte · 02-05-2004, 04:17 PM

Don't worry about the details, Uwe but... 
Definitely, there was no drowned horseman. As it was pointed on a previous thread, a bunch of equipment lost by accident is possible too, but with no casualties. 
The bog is of the kind that preserves wood, leather and animal tissues but it dissolves completely iron and bone (that goes for the hypothetical spear point!) 
One of the 'loose' shoes was carrying the spur (why not a pair, if there was a horseman, where is the belt?) 
Ther is part of a leather sword scabbard (no end preserved) and a silver fitting that I think belonged to a Gundremmingen type chape. Well , the fitting does not belong to the same scabbard than the leather, there were two swords, perhaps (iron blade and bonen pommel having being completely dissolved) 
Yes, Carol read a paper on Deurne at the 1996 Montpellier ROMEC. She told me that it was going to be published on Bonner Jahrbuch last year... 
As far as I know, only Smolenaars 'excavated' the site, no better than a boar in the mud. They must be still considering to go there at the Leiden Museum... 
 
Aitor

02-05-2004, 05:14 PM

The part about the spur still attached to one shoe make me suspect more and more that this was a wreck. Unless they didn't remove the spurs before packing their shoes.. 
Someone lost his footing, or a mule did, and they managed to save some equipment and could not save the rest. 
The shoe with the spur may have been sucked in by the mud. A common occurrence.

**Robert Vermaat** · 02-06-2004, 07:25 AM

We discussed this thoroughly on a previous thread (where is it gone? Anyone?), and I think the common conclusion was that, accident or offering, no body remained in the moor. 
 
My own view tends to go in the direction of an accident, as described above, with at least one horseman going under. He was no doubt pulled out later (dead or alive), at the cost of several pieces of equipment. Whether or not the helmet was carried inside the bag or not is impossible to say, and I even dare Carol van Driel-Murray to prove that the contents of the bag can be determined beyond doubt. Knowing that all items were prized from the moor a century ago, and spade blade marks are likely to have been made on ebery items, whatever their position in the moor. If these marks are the best evidence for an offering, I shan't be convinced that easy. 
 
Their was some talk about the shoes pointing to a votive offering because they all were right shoes. (or was it left? I forget ) However, Carol van Driel-Murray herself wrote about offering shoes, and these were all from the other foot, which in my opinion weakenes the offering theory somewhat. 
 
But, in the end, we will never know for sure. 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

aitor iriarte · 02-06-2004, 11:50 AM

Robert, Antoninus, 
Remains of four shoes are deposited at the Leiden Museum 
There are a pair of fairly closed shoes and two isolated right shoes, seemingly of a bigger size, and belonging to the open 'campagus' tipe. One of the last one had the spur attached when it was recovered. 
Smolenaars' frenetic searches for the missing cheek-piece undoubtedly disturbed everything. He was not interested on wooden, textiles or leather (fortunately, a good deal of leather and some textiles could be saved) and we'll neve know how much of them were lost forever. He was more interested on metal and perhaps he recovered most metallic items (however, where is the other spur?) Notwithstanding, we can be pretty sure that he wouldn't have passed over the missing cheek-piece. Carol thinks that he simply destroyed it during his first encounter but, IMHO Smolenaars would have recovered the surviving fragments, knowing that they represented some extra gulden for him! 
What do you mean when you mention the bag, Robert? The only bag is that intended for the transport of the helmet and when on the first letter sent to the Museum it is mentioned that Smolenaars has stripped the helmet from his leather lining, maybe what is mentioning is the bag (I think that those helmets only had leather edgings, the inner lining was probably made of felt) 
Finally, only wooden, leather, copper-alloy, silver or golden components would have survived inside De Peel moor of a sword and its scabbard, i.e. the scabbard and its chape. The scabbard slider could have perfectly been made of bone or ivory. Robert has exposed it very clearly: WE'LL NEVER KNOW FOR SURE. 
Anyway, I look forward to read Carol's paper... if it is ever published! 
 
Aitor

**Robert Vermaat** · 02-06-2004, 03:00 PM

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Aitor! 
 
About that bag - I can agree that the helemt was carried inside the bag when it went in, no problem. Or rather better, even, for that would speak against a votive offering - when you present something to the gods, surely you show it in all it's splendour, shining in the light! Not in an old bag.. 
 
But, about the bag, I seem to remember that our discussion about accident/offering hinged on the theory by Carol van Driel, that all the items found had come from a single pack, that was deposited in one offering. Shovel-marks would testify that, or something. 
My opinion to that is that a) this was not stated in the finds report, and b) the items were not described in situ, so any conclusions as to their original position when found, are difficult to make. 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

aitor iriarte · 02-06-2004, 06:53 PM

Robert, 
Your last paragraph summarizes the situation perfectly! 
Anyway, we've not examined the items so closely as Carol has done. Therefore, let's give her a chance until we can read her published paper (when? ) 
 
Aitor Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=aitoririarte>Aitor Iriarte</A> at: 2/6/04 7:56 pm

02-09-2004, 08:54 PM

Dear Robert, Iator, 
 
I think you are party both right. We will never kow what really happenend, but.... 
I found a letter in the archives of the museum (dated shortly after the find) from an eyewhitness who states that the helmet and the leather bag were found about 15 meters apart and even not at the same time. Smolenaars firstly discovered the helmet, gave it to someone else to be washed in the nearby water went home and came back later taht afternoon to look for more. He then discovered the bag. In the bag were the coins, so the confusion arose that it was a moneybag. As Aitor states it is the bag of the helmet, as the helmet fits in perfectly. Carol said that the helmet was wrapped in the leather tentpanels. I can agree with this. From classical literature it is evident that roman military man in these days had their own privat one person tent. This seems have to be the case with the tentpanels. My humble opinion is that this so called officer rode along an old road and for some reason lost a part of his equipment which was wrapped in the tent and in a bag. It must have slipped form his horse or from the horse of one of his companions. That he had companions is claer to me, not only because of the different shoes (different sizes) but also because soldiers during Constantine and earlier clearly had personel to look for there horse etc. Most likely the 'officer' was riding along with his personle, and lost two bundles of equipment. I think they must have cursed when they found out. 
I also agree about the bone parts beloning to the sword. I think they were made of bone or horn and have dissolved. The same could have happened of the belt, because the chipcarved plates that we should aspect in those days, could well have been made of bone, horn of ivory. These have not been found yet, but clearly the technic of chipcarving came from these materials and was later used in metal. 
Im not aware of the content of carols article other then it will be about the leather and the textile, but it should have come out in the Bonner Jahrbuecher 2000 (should have been published in 2003). Unfortunately it is still not available. Has any of you seen her article in concept. 
 
Arpvar

aitor iriarte · 02-10-2004, 12:52 PM

Arpvar, 
I guessed that you had a white rabbit inside your top hat! 
Is it possible to access to the complete (translated) text of that letter or is it top secret? 
Chip-carved belt fittings came into fashion 50 years later thn the Deurne finds reached the bog! By that time, even propeller fittings were only starting to be fashionable. In case that abelt would have been present, the metallic fittings (bronze, silver or gold) would have survived, alongside with the leather belt itself! No, there was no belt. 
BTW, one bundle or more, the votive offering theory is still as plausible as that of the accident, sorry ! 
 
Aitor 
 
PS, please, don't forget the table drawings! BTW, do you belong to any re-en group?

02-11-2004, 08:31 PM

Dear Iator, 
 
The letter is no secret, but it will take some time to translate it from to english. I'll do my best. As said earlier I am preparing an article about the find. Any information you have would about the deurne find would be extreemly be very wellcome (see also questions below). 
As for the belt, I know no belt was found, but I do expect the man to have had a belt. Any idea how it would have looked then? I learned that the chipcarved beltplates were preceded by bone or horne carved plates so I expect these to have been worn in general around 320. 
I'm still not convinced about the offering. I have checked dozens of offerings and in all these the offerings were given in one spot and not in two. So, a loss is more plausible. Even a trained horse would have had difficulty walking in the boggy terrain and perhaps lost his ballance, slipped or just slowly lost his baggage during a winter night (?) Okee, its all hypothetical, we will never know, but please correct me if I'm wrong about my plausibility 
I'm also curious about an other thing. Why did the soldier wrapp his helmet in the tentpanels when he had a perfect bag for it?. 
And what about the date of the find. The coins that were found were dated untill 319 but are very worn off. This is not normal for recently minted coins. They were not worn of by the asid in the bog. The shoes also did not have any nails. This is not yet typical for early fourth century shoes, or is it? 
How sure are the dates of some of the other late roman helmets (Berkesova, Augst etc), and what are there exect dates. On the other hand, there seems to have been something going on around 320 in the Netherlands. More finds (coins, weaponry) have been done around that date. 
 
I won't forget the table drawings with the measure-ments. I hope to have the new compu working by next weekend, so in a few days time they will arrive. 
 
arpvar

aitor iriarte · 02-12-2004, 09:36 AM

Arpvar, 
 
Where do I start from? LetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s seeÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ 
Many thanks for translating the letter (BTW, was it written near the find date or some years later? We must not forget that letter by Herr Kohlgruber which, if it really existed, was telling facts that never happened just 24 years later!) 
I wrote a short paper on my reconstruction of the helmet inner iron core for the Montpellier ROMEC, if you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know it, I can send you a copy by e-mail (if you give me your address) 
Why are you so insisting on the belt? There was never one present at Deurne, with most probability! If there were bone chip-carved belt plates pre-ceding the metallic ones, some of them should have survived on the archaeo-logical record (not all the environments are so aggressive as De Peel moor is!) and, as far as I know, there are none of them. The chip-carved style is not only a kind of decoration, the belts themselves changed too and they were made much broader than the narrower ones in fashion during Constantinian times and until the 370s (IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll return to this later!) Moreover, a Roman belt was a substantial item, made of two layers of leather sewn together, longer than the sword scab-bard and a fragment of it would have probably reached us. 
About offerings, battle spoils offerings appear scattered. Of course, De-urne is not Thorsberg or Illerup but I can still imagine a small party of Germans throwing to a bog part of the battle spoils won in a skirmish against Roman sol-diers. The helmet lacked one of its cheek-pieces and maybe more items were somehow damaged before they encountered SmolenaarsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ spade! 
It was Carol who stated that the helmet was inside its bag and then, with the rest of items was packed inside the rolled tent panels. 
The coins were very damaged by the acid in the bog, the surviving parts of original surface tell us that they were new when they were thrown to the bog. Therefore, the date around 320 is correct. Unfortunately, the rest of helmets cannot be so closely dated as the Deurne one. Notwithstanding, Berkasovo 2 wore the inscription Ã¢â‚¬ËœLICINIANA VICITÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, which can only be placed between 313 and 325, with 314 as most probable date. 
The shoes are very typical of the date, specially the two campagi (The right shoes, the one with the spur and the simpler one) The earliest attested ones appear on the Luxor frescoes, dated ca 300 and they appear on many Constantinian sculpted sarcophagi. Actual shoes, others than those from De-urne have appeared at Vindolanda and a good batch is currently been recov-ered at Cuijk. By the age of Theodosius (if not somewhat earlier) he design of the campagi changed. 
I hope to have been of some help! 
 
Aitor

**Robert Vermaat** · 02-12-2004, 03:16 PM

Arpvar, 
 
Why should there have been a belt if the guy got out? 
 
Btw, where are you from? 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

02-28-2004, 08:47 PM

dear Aitor and Robert, 
 
Thanks for the reply, sorry for not writing back sooner, but our new computer had some problems. 
 
As said I am preparing an article on the subject so I'm very happy with your remarks. 
As for the belt, I checked Bishop and Coulston etc and you are correct. No bone plates have ever been found, and the bronze chipcarved plates seem to been from a later date. It is quite possible that no belt was lost, but I am trying to find out what type of belt the soldier could have worn. 
As to the coins. A specialist on Roman numismatics checked them and told me that the wearing of did not come from the bog. So we still have a problem here. Although the latest coin dates from 319/320 they could have been used for a longer time. 
As for the shoes, you mentioned that the campagi were identified on some Roman sarcofagi etc. Can you give me some more information on this. I would very much like to know the sarcofagi etc and their location. I'm also very interested a reconstructiondrawing of them. I have seen the drawings in the literature and they are not very correct. You seem to have more information, and mentioned also some finds in Cuijk. Do you have info pictures or drawings on these new finds? 
You also mentioned the remains of two swordscabbards. Can you tell me where you got this information. I know of only one piece of leather and one silver ribbed fitting. As the scabbard could well have been smaller at the bottom, the leather part could have been at the upper side of the scabbard and the silver fitting on the lowwer side. To my opinion the type of scabbard would have looked like the Gunremmingen scabbard or scabbards on the Tetrarchen in Venice. 
Normally in the literature a scabbardslide of bone is mentioned. I think this to be to weak and think they were made of antler. This material is much stronger. How does your reconstructions look like? 
 
greetings, 
 
Arpvar

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me