The study concerns Roman mounted units in the period between mid III c. and the death of Theodosi... more The study concerns Roman mounted units in the period between mid III c. and the death of Theodosius the Great, with the final division of the empire in the year 395. For a long time this topic has been considerably unpopular, as the Roman Empire cavalry monographs almost completely omit it. Although synthetic publications on the late Roman army are, generally, rather numerous, the issue of horse units has yet not been sufficiently covered. Only recently have such studies started appearing but, until now, these were solely limited to a single category of mounted units, or a selected period under one ruler. The need for writing such a work, as well as for an adoption of a new perspective on the whole of late Roman army, has been postulated may times before.
The first part of the work speaks about the place of horse mounted units in the Roman military system. During the first four centuries, the Roman cavalry units underwent several changes. These concerned their number, quality, status, as well as military equipment. Initially organised as allied contingents without Roman citizenship, the units preserved their ethnic features and the modes of combat typical for the populations comprising them. From the II c. onwards the service within these formations – due to prestige reasons, higher salary, and greater future career opportunities – was more and more often selected by the citizens, thus blurring the unique, distinctive traits of the units.
Attempts at reversing this trend were undertaken during the Severan dynasty reign. The declaration of Constitutio Antoniniana expanded the Roman citizenship almost to all free residents of the Roman Empire. Although this document mostly solved the problem of recruitment to the legions, the clause concerning exclusion of dediticii from the citizens exerted a profound impact on the auxiliary forces, including the cavalry. It still allowed to form ethnic units - characterised by a mode of combat distinct from that of the Romans – particularly useful in the activities taking place in rough terrain. Probably, on this basis the new cavalry units were recruited in the III c. – ones which were to become the next century's elite of the whole exercitus romanus.
The Severan policy with respect to the army was a particular foundation for its future organisation. It was at this time that the process of making the high command more prosessional started. The place of amateurs, who had been coming from senators, was more and more often taken by equites for whom the military service was not only a stage in their career, but its goal. The new leaders, as professionals, perfectly understood the importance of the horse mounted units in the army of the time, and as a result of their actions the army grew in numbers and in diversity. Another novelty was the creation of permanent mobile forces among which the cavalry units played a significant part, and the constant proximity to the court was the reason for their improved status.
In the Roman historiography, the myth of Gallienus as the creator of an independent cavalry corps is particularly strong. As a result of his activities the growth in number of horse mounted units was supposed to take place, accompanying their further specialisation. Such an assumption is mostly based on the accounts of George Cedrenus, who lived in the IX c., and is not confirmed by any sources contemporaneous to Gallienus – both, including written and archaeological. Moreover, these rather suggest a completely opposite solution, namely that larger parts of these formations were created much later. The helpful hint in identifying the mounted units which could serve in this ruler's comitatus can be the fact that some of them were not located in the East, or were not included in the Eastern armies. The conspirators would not surround themselves with soldiers whose loyalty they were not certain. That is why, it is possible that the cavalry formations loyal to Gallienus did not take part in the further conquest of the East carried out by Aurelian, nor in the later reorganisation of these terrains by Diocletian, and which, as a result, were listed in sections regarding the Western part of the empire in Notitia Dignitatum.
During the times of tetrarchy, the cavalry started playing a more important role, especially in the newely organised Eastern provinces where it constituted a significant percentage of the units stationed there. In this period, new types of units were created - equites indigenae and cunei equitum. The attempts to reorganise the horse mounted units undertaken at the time are confirmed by the case of equites lanciarii. There are only a few sources concerning these units, dating back to the latter part of III c., whereas in later times there is not even the slightest remark about these riders.. They were probably created as a form of experiment which, for reasons unknown, was subsequently abandoned. At the time, an internal hierarchy of the horse mounted units was also developed and new ranks were introduced, thus acquiring them a certain degree of autonomy which can be confirmed by the separation of the vexillationes from their original legions.
The real increase in the number of cavalry units took place as a result of civil wars, only at the time of Constantine the Great. Their status, and greater privileges than in the case of other soldiers, were confirmed by the emperor's constitutions. In the lists concerning each category of soldiers created by this ruler (comitatenses and limitanei), cavalry is always enumerated in the first place. At this point it had already acquired a full autonomy with its commander, called magister equitum, who was equal in rank to the leader of the infantry - magister peditum. Constantine the Great formed a new horse mounted guard in place of the praetorians. The service in such units, on account of the ruler's proximity, was the most prestigious and the most lucrative, and in order to take it up one needed considerable wealth. The proportion between cavalry and infantry units fixed at this time remained unchanged up to the battle of Adrianople.
In the period following the death of Constantine the Great, until the unprecedented defeat from the hands of the Goths and their allies, the process of forming new units nearly completely ground to a halt and it is difficult to judge which of them were created during the reign of his successors. The only novelty was to supplement the unit titles with the suffixes iuniores or seniores. This was related to the division of units, the main criterion for which was age of the soldiers.
The second part concerns the weaponry of the Roman cavalry. It did not change much in comparison with the previous ages, and in III and IV c. it was almost identical to that used by the infantry. The single differing elements following the creation of fabricae armorum were helmets, and a bit earlier, already in the III c., the manner of strapping, carrying, and the construction of swords.
The third and last part is devoted to the tasks of the cavalry units during war campaigns, which did not change despite the growth in the number and in the status of such soldiers. During marches, the units were occupied with safeguarding the column and reconnaissance. In combat, they mainly served as protection for the main forces, i.e. the heavy infantry. In III and IV c. the horsemen were still not the dominating force in the army, and in fact the Romans themselves could not take advantage of such units successfully enough. During clashes, the cavalry made numerous mistakes (especially the heavy armed units) - their behaviour was marked with cowardice and insubordination, in effect, almost causing a defeat in the battle of Argentoratum, or a catastrophe in the battle of Adrianople. The biggest triumphs however were won only in the subsequent centuries, as parts of the Byzantine army in the East or the barbarian, and later medieval kingdoms of the Western Europe.
Roman helmets with masks have been arising controversy since the discovery of the first of its ki... more Roman helmets with masks have been arising controversy since the discovery of the first of its kind. These controversies were the mainspring to prepare this dissertation for publishing. In May 2010 a marvelous piece of helmet was discovered in Crosby Garrett, England by an unnamed metal detectorist (cat. no 85; Tabl. 22). This information reached public in mid-September, when Christie’s Auction House announced the sale of the item and seventh October was set as the date of the auction. The helmet’s value was estimated at £200,000 – 300,000. In spite of fund raising and intervention of the higher authorities against currently effective law, the helmet was sold to a private person for a stunning amount of £2,330,468.75. Roman helmets with masks are significantly different in comparison with other types. They were created by adding to existing bowls metal shades with cavities in places of eyes, nose and mouth. Both elements were attached over the forehead in such a way, that one was able to lift up and down the shade without difficulty. These helmets have raised a great interest of scholars and they have been subjects of many discussions. Origin and methods of becoming a part of Roman military equipment as well as their usage are still to be established. The very first attempt of their interpretation was undertaken by O. Benndorf in 1878, suggesting that they functioned as post-mortal masks put on a face of the deceased. In his dissertation P. Couissin rejected this explanation and provided two equal theses stating their military or ,,tournament-parade” character. Next scholars tried to face interpretation of such helmets while describing famous findings such as Chasennard or Newstead. H. J. Klumbach in his work (1974) categorized and described Roman army helmets found in the territory of Germania. He created a separate category and made a term ,,Gesichtshelme” widely known. In 1975 H. R. Robinson wrote a basic thesis on Roman armour. Its chapter was dedicated to helmets qualified as sports equipment, among which pieces with shades are present. Holistic study of the armour recognized as parade equipment was presented by J. Garbsch. It includes not only the description of helmets, but also other elements of military equipment. Especially worth of attention is chapter by M. Kohlert concerning typology and chronology of the masks. Circumstances of discovering new exemplars of shades, especially from lower Rhine territory inclined M. Junkelmann to verify the views on usage of early helmets of this kind. After conducting an experiment he noted, that they are suitable for battle. He coined the thesis on their double function, military and parade, limiting the first one only to the first century A.D. Roman helmets with masks contain a bowls and metal shade presenting humanface. The bowls, covered with rich ornamentation, generally did not prevail. Depending on the way of attaching these two elements, they are divided into two- and three-parts (fig. 1). The most of the findings are two-part helmets (fig. 1A). Masks depict a face of a young male or female with a more or less impressive haircut. Bowls and shades were attached with one another by a hinge or hooks under the hairline, a diadem or haircut, at the highest point of the head. Three-part helmets, consisting of a bowl and a movable shade and a taken out mask (fig. 1B), were created probably in the second part of the second century A.D. A small number of the findings suggests that they were not so popular. The helmets were mainly made of iron and bronze, although brass and copper were also present. Some of them were plated with silver. The bowls and masks were made by hammering, their proper form reached by hitting of the hammer. To prevent from deformations of the metal, soft, organic paddings were used. During this process the masks were repeatedly heated to high temperatures. Delicate ornaments were engraved. These helmets were lined with leather or other materials, ensuring comfortable usage. The most part of the surface of the helmets was covered with decorations depicting figural scenes, lines, blossom, military signs or hairstyles. Polychromy was used in order to acquire contrast between the mask and the bowl. The masks were frequently plated with silver or gilded occasionally. Due to the lack of unambiguous archaeological evidence of manufacturing places of the helmets, their location is still unknown. The production of armour on a state scale was introduced in the times of Diocletian. Earlier there is a lack of any sources confirming the existence of fabricae manufacturing weapon on a massive scale. With only few bowls preserved the toil of creating typology and chronology was undertaken by M. Kohlert. As a basis for identification of individual types she adopted the way of attaching mask with bowl, material from which the mask was made of and morphological features of the mask, such as the manner of rendition of the beard and hair. The origin of Roman helmets with masks, their spreading in the territory of the Empire and the way of adaptation in Roman army are still mysterious. There are a few hypotheses, but none of them is based on irrefutable evidence. Helmets with masks in the shape of a human face were known in the Hellenistic world, in Asia Minor and Syria. The frieze from the portico surrounding the AthenaPolias temple in Pergamon presents such an exemplar (Tabl. 1) The origin of this kind of equipment relates to an old Roman practice of making a post-mortal mask for the deceased member of the family. Another clue is also a rite of fighting demonstration during funerals of the members of the Roman elite. Another thesis points to Thracians as the first users and those, who transferred these helmets to the Romans. The evidence to support this concept was concentration of the oldest findings of Roman helmets with masks in the territory of Thrace as well as at the places of deployment Thracian units, which approximately match the locations of the helmets discovered in other provinces of the Empire. A new light on the origin is thrown by the discovery of the oldest Roman mask from Kalkriese (cat. no 1; Tabl. 3), presenting an entirely different physiognomic features than the abovementioned exemplars. N. Hanel, U. Pelltz, F. Willer point to the possibility of acquiring this armour from Batavians. Despite widespread of this type of helmets, they underline the concentration of the oldest findings of the Nijmegen-Kops Plateau helmets in lower Germania and in the barbaric territory of the Rhine’s right side (fig. 4). Current knowledge does not allow us to stipulate unambiguously the origin of the Roman helmets with masks. The usage of Roman helmets with masks, similarly to its origin, is not entirely clear and still is the subject of discussions. Thanks to the testimony of Arrian and due to the lack of direct written and iconographical sources, showing their usage by the Roman army on the battlefield, nowadays the concept of their non-military character is dominant. They were supposed to be a parade or ,,tournament” equipment. These helmets are no different than other kind of armour with respect to technological manufacturing. They are made of the same materials and in a similar manner. Luxurious character and rich ornamentation are no obstacle during the fight. A simple experiment shows that the masks neither hindered observation nor breathing. They were an additional protection and completed the equipment of the heavy Roman cavalry, cataphracti and clibanarii. Written sources also confirm their usage not only in 1st century A.D. The works of Arrian are an extraordinary source referring to ancient warfare, but they may not be treated as directly concerning the Roman heavy cavalry.
Dieser Aufsatz stellt einige Uberlegungen zur Funktion der romischen Helme mit Gesichtsmaske an. ... more Dieser Aufsatz stellt einige Uberlegungen zur Funktion der romischen Helme mit Gesichtsmaske an. Diese Stucke waren einer der wirkungsvollsten Ausrustungsgegenstande der romischen Soldaten, die seit dem 19. Jahrhundert fur gelehrtes Interesse und kontroverse Debatten sorgten. Trotz uberreicher Literatur ist ihre Funktion immer noch Thema zahlreicher Diskussionen. Der Gelehrtenstreit dreht sich immer wieder um einige wenige Interpretationsmoglichkeiten, wovon sich die beiden popularsten gegenseitig ausschliesen: Sie postulieren, dass diese Helme entweder bei Paraden und Festlichkeiten oder in der Schlacht getragen wurden. Unter Einbeziehung der archaologischen und historischen Quellen, von Metallanalysen und der Ergebnisse verschiedener Experimente kommt der Autor zu dem Schluss, dass diese Helme fur beide Gelegenheiten gleich gut geeignet waren.
In March 1999, in connection with construction works on the site was carried out an archaeologica... more In March 1999, in connection with construction works on the site was carried out an archaeological monitoring. It was limited to exploration of foundations of the future building. In sections of the foundation trenches remains of fve archaeological featureswere found. four of them were relics of the Lusatian culture settlement from the earlyIron Age. the subject of this paper is only feature No. 1. It was recorded directly under layer of humus, in trench section (south-eastern wall of the building, fig. 2). It was oval in plan with dimensions of approximately 1.2 × 0.56 m. Its thickness was approximately 0.3 m and its fll was dark grey sand with scorch. the top part of the feature was damaged by ploughing, the traces of which were visible in feature’s plan. Damage to the upper parts of pottery vessels seems to confrm this assumption (Gurtowski 1999, p. 3). In the feature six pottery vessels were found (some completely preserved and some in state enabling reconstruction: type ID bulbous vessel, type XIIA cup, type w-XV/c barrel-shaped clay mug, strainer, type VI e clay bowl, type ID pot and 37 pottery fragments), clay spindle whorl, fossilized sponge and animal bones (two tusks of domestic pig, one tusk of wild boar, one tooth of beaver, mandible fragment of sheep/goat, long bone of a bird from Anserinae subfamily). function of the feature is very puzzling. Lack of scorch in it, no traces of burning on animal bones and artefacts, the size and shape of the pit suggest that we may deal here with poorly preserved inhumation or symbolic burial (of which only south-eastern or southern edge was found). Assuming that it is a grave, its equipment – amongst others discovery of a spindle whorl (czarnecka 1990, pp. 42-43) and a tusk of wild boar – suggests that this could be woman’s or child’s grave (comparing with Masłomęcz burials, Kokowski 2004, p. 30). Perhaps we deal with some kind of foundation sacrifce, which may be evidenced by large amount of animal bones, e.g. tusk of wild boar. Due to the lack of precisely dating elements, the chronology of the grave can be only roughly determined. the occurrence in the assemblage in question type VI e bowl and type XVc mug as well as type ID pot, allow to date the feature no earlier than to phase B2/c1 (see wołągiewicz 1993, pp. 30, 86, List 1D, p. 105, list 6e , p. 125, list 15c.). Attempts to situate the assemblage in a narrower chronological context have no grounds.
This essay offers reflections on the functions of Roman helmets with masks. They were one of the ... more This essay offers reflections on the functions of Roman helmets with masks. They were one of the most effective elements of Roman soldiers’ equipment, arousing scholars’ interest and controversy since the 19th century. Despite abundant literature, their function is still the subject of numerous discussions. Scholars’ views revolve around a few possibilities. Two most popular of such theses supposedly exclude one another. They claim that the helmets were used during parades and festivities or during battles. The author, taking into consideration archaeological sources, historical records, metallographic analyses and the outcome of various experiments seeks to show that these helmets proved to be a perfect solution in both cases.
The study concerns Roman mounted units in the period between mid III c. and the death of Theodosi... more The study concerns Roman mounted units in the period between mid III c. and the death of Theodosius the Great, with the final division of the empire in the year 395. For a long time this topic has been considerably unpopular, as the Roman Empire cavalry monographs almost completely omit it. Although synthetic publications on the late Roman army are, generally, rather numerous, the issue of horse units has yet not been sufficiently covered. Only recently have such studies started appearing but, until now, these were solely limited to a single category of mounted units, or a selected period under one ruler. The need for writing such a work, as well as for an adoption of a new perspective on the whole of late Roman army, has been postulated may times before.
The first part of the work speaks about the place of horse mounted units in the Roman military system. During the first four centuries, the Roman cavalry units underwent several changes. These concerned their number, quality, status, as well as military equipment. Initially organised as allied contingents without Roman citizenship, the units preserved their ethnic features and the modes of combat typical for the populations comprising them. From the II c. onwards the service within these formations – due to prestige reasons, higher salary, and greater future career opportunities – was more and more often selected by the citizens, thus blurring the unique, distinctive traits of the units.
Attempts at reversing this trend were undertaken during the Severan dynasty reign. The declaration of Constitutio Antoniniana expanded the Roman citizenship almost to all free residents of the Roman Empire. Although this document mostly solved the problem of recruitment to the legions, the clause concerning exclusion of dediticii from the citizens exerted a profound impact on the auxiliary forces, including the cavalry. It still allowed to form ethnic units - characterised by a mode of combat distinct from that of the Romans – particularly useful in the activities taking place in rough terrain. Probably, on this basis the new cavalry units were recruited in the III c. – ones which were to become the next century's elite of the whole exercitus romanus.
The Severan policy with respect to the army was a particular foundation for its future organisation. It was at this time that the process of making the high command more prosessional started. The place of amateurs, who had been coming from senators, was more and more often taken by equites for whom the military service was not only a stage in their career, but its goal. The new leaders, as professionals, perfectly understood the importance of the horse mounted units in the army of the time, and as a result of their actions the army grew in numbers and in diversity. Another novelty was the creation of permanent mobile forces among which the cavalry units played a significant part, and the constant proximity to the court was the reason for their improved status.
In the Roman historiography, the myth of Gallienus as the creator of an independent cavalry corps is particularly strong. As a result of his activities the growth in number of horse mounted units was supposed to take place, accompanying their further specialisation. Such an assumption is mostly based on the accounts of George Cedrenus, who lived in the IX c., and is not confirmed by any sources contemporaneous to Gallienus – both, including written and archaeological. Moreover, these rather suggest a completely opposite solution, namely that larger parts of these formations were created much later. The helpful hint in identifying the mounted units which could serve in this ruler's comitatus can be the fact that some of them were not located in the East, or were not included in the Eastern armies. The conspirators would not surround themselves with soldiers whose loyalty they were not certain. That is why, it is possible that the cavalry formations loyal to Gallienus did not take part in the further conquest of the East carried out by Aurelian, nor in the later reorganisation of these terrains by Diocletian, and which, as a result, were listed in sections regarding the Western part of the empire in Notitia Dignitatum.
During the times of tetrarchy, the cavalry started playing a more important role, especially in the newely organised Eastern provinces where it constituted a significant percentage of the units stationed there. In this period, new types of units were created - equites indigenae and cunei equitum. The attempts to reorganise the horse mounted units undertaken at the time are confirmed by the case of equites lanciarii. There are only a few sources concerning these units, dating back to the latter part of III c., whereas in later times there is not even the slightest remark about these riders.. They were probably created as a form of experiment which, for reasons unknown, was subsequently abandoned. At the time, an internal hierarchy of the horse mounted units was also developed and new ranks were introduced, thus acquiring them a certain degree of autonomy which can be confirmed by the separation of the vexillationes from their original legions.
The real increase in the number of cavalry units took place as a result of civil wars, only at the time of Constantine the Great. Their status, and greater privileges than in the case of other soldiers, were confirmed by the emperor's constitutions. In the lists concerning each category of soldiers created by this ruler (comitatenses and limitanei), cavalry is always enumerated in the first place. At this point it had already acquired a full autonomy with its commander, called magister equitum, who was equal in rank to the leader of the infantry - magister peditum. Constantine the Great formed a new horse mounted guard in place of the praetorians. The service in such units, on account of the ruler's proximity, was the most prestigious and the most lucrative, and in order to take it up one needed considerable wealth. The proportion between cavalry and infantry units fixed at this time remained unchanged up to the battle of Adrianople.
In the period following the death of Constantine the Great, until the unprecedented defeat from the hands of the Goths and their allies, the process of forming new units nearly completely ground to a halt and it is difficult to judge which of them were created during the reign of his successors. The only novelty was to supplement the unit titles with the suffixes iuniores or seniores. This was related to the division of units, the main criterion for which was age of the soldiers.
The second part concerns the weaponry of the Roman cavalry. It did not change much in comparison with the previous ages, and in III and IV c. it was almost identical to that used by the infantry. The single differing elements following the creation of fabricae armorum were helmets, and a bit earlier, already in the III c., the manner of strapping, carrying, and the construction of swords.
The third and last part is devoted to the tasks of the cavalry units during war campaigns, which did not change despite the growth in the number and in the status of such soldiers. During marches, the units were occupied with safeguarding the column and reconnaissance. In combat, they mainly served as protection for the main forces, i.e. the heavy infantry. In III and IV c. the horsemen were still not the dominating force in the army, and in fact the Romans themselves could not take advantage of such units successfully enough. During clashes, the cavalry made numerous mistakes (especially the heavy armed units) - their behaviour was marked with cowardice and insubordination, in effect, almost causing a defeat in the battle of Argentoratum, or a catastrophe in the battle of Adrianople. The biggest triumphs however were won only in the subsequent centuries, as parts of the Byzantine army in the East or the barbarian, and later medieval kingdoms of the Western Europe.
Roman helmets with masks have been arising controversy since the discovery of the first of its ki... more Roman helmets with masks have been arising controversy since the discovery of the first of its kind. These controversies were the mainspring to prepare this dissertation for publishing. In May 2010 a marvelous piece of helmet was discovered in Crosby Garrett, England by an unnamed metal detectorist (cat. no 85; Tabl. 22). This information reached public in mid-September, when Christie’s Auction House announced the sale of the item and seventh October was set as the date of the auction. The helmet’s value was estimated at £200,000 – 300,000. In spite of fund raising and intervention of the higher authorities against currently effective law, the helmet was sold to a private person for a stunning amount of £2,330,468.75. Roman helmets with masks are significantly different in comparison with other types. They were created by adding to existing bowls metal shades with cavities in places of eyes, nose and mouth. Both elements were attached over the forehead in such a way, that one was able to lift up and down the shade without difficulty. These helmets have raised a great interest of scholars and they have been subjects of many discussions. Origin and methods of becoming a part of Roman military equipment as well as their usage are still to be established. The very first attempt of their interpretation was undertaken by O. Benndorf in 1878, suggesting that they functioned as post-mortal masks put on a face of the deceased. In his dissertation P. Couissin rejected this explanation and provided two equal theses stating their military or ,,tournament-parade” character. Next scholars tried to face interpretation of such helmets while describing famous findings such as Chasennard or Newstead. H. J. Klumbach in his work (1974) categorized and described Roman army helmets found in the territory of Germania. He created a separate category and made a term ,,Gesichtshelme” widely known. In 1975 H. R. Robinson wrote a basic thesis on Roman armour. Its chapter was dedicated to helmets qualified as sports equipment, among which pieces with shades are present. Holistic study of the armour recognized as parade equipment was presented by J. Garbsch. It includes not only the description of helmets, but also other elements of military equipment. Especially worth of attention is chapter by M. Kohlert concerning typology and chronology of the masks. Circumstances of discovering new exemplars of shades, especially from lower Rhine territory inclined M. Junkelmann to verify the views on usage of early helmets of this kind. After conducting an experiment he noted, that they are suitable for battle. He coined the thesis on their double function, military and parade, limiting the first one only to the first century A.D. Roman helmets with masks contain a bowls and metal shade presenting humanface. The bowls, covered with rich ornamentation, generally did not prevail. Depending on the way of attaching these two elements, they are divided into two- and three-parts (fig. 1). The most of the findings are two-part helmets (fig. 1A). Masks depict a face of a young male or female with a more or less impressive haircut. Bowls and shades were attached with one another by a hinge or hooks under the hairline, a diadem or haircut, at the highest point of the head. Three-part helmets, consisting of a bowl and a movable shade and a taken out mask (fig. 1B), were created probably in the second part of the second century A.D. A small number of the findings suggests that they were not so popular. The helmets were mainly made of iron and bronze, although brass and copper were also present. Some of them were plated with silver. The bowls and masks were made by hammering, their proper form reached by hitting of the hammer. To prevent from deformations of the metal, soft, organic paddings were used. During this process the masks were repeatedly heated to high temperatures. Delicate ornaments were engraved. These helmets were lined with leather or other materials, ensuring comfortable usage. The most part of the surface of the helmets was covered with decorations depicting figural scenes, lines, blossom, military signs or hairstyles. Polychromy was used in order to acquire contrast between the mask and the bowl. The masks were frequently plated with silver or gilded occasionally. Due to the lack of unambiguous archaeological evidence of manufacturing places of the helmets, their location is still unknown. The production of armour on a state scale was introduced in the times of Diocletian. Earlier there is a lack of any sources confirming the existence of fabricae manufacturing weapon on a massive scale. With only few bowls preserved the toil of creating typology and chronology was undertaken by M. Kohlert. As a basis for identification of individual types she adopted the way of attaching mask with bowl, material from which the mask was made of and morphological features of the mask, such as the manner of rendition of the beard and hair. The origin of Roman helmets with masks, their spreading in the territory of the Empire and the way of adaptation in Roman army are still mysterious. There are a few hypotheses, but none of them is based on irrefutable evidence. Helmets with masks in the shape of a human face were known in the Hellenistic world, in Asia Minor and Syria. The frieze from the portico surrounding the AthenaPolias temple in Pergamon presents such an exemplar (Tabl. 1) The origin of this kind of equipment relates to an old Roman practice of making a post-mortal mask for the deceased member of the family. Another clue is also a rite of fighting demonstration during funerals of the members of the Roman elite. Another thesis points to Thracians as the first users and those, who transferred these helmets to the Romans. The evidence to support this concept was concentration of the oldest findings of Roman helmets with masks in the territory of Thrace as well as at the places of deployment Thracian units, which approximately match the locations of the helmets discovered in other provinces of the Empire. A new light on the origin is thrown by the discovery of the oldest Roman mask from Kalkriese (cat. no 1; Tabl. 3), presenting an entirely different physiognomic features than the abovementioned exemplars. N. Hanel, U. Pelltz, F. Willer point to the possibility of acquiring this armour from Batavians. Despite widespread of this type of helmets, they underline the concentration of the oldest findings of the Nijmegen-Kops Plateau helmets in lower Germania and in the barbaric territory of the Rhine’s right side (fig. 4). Current knowledge does not allow us to stipulate unambiguously the origin of the Roman helmets with masks. The usage of Roman helmets with masks, similarly to its origin, is not entirely clear and still is the subject of discussions. Thanks to the testimony of Arrian and due to the lack of direct written and iconographical sources, showing their usage by the Roman army on the battlefield, nowadays the concept of their non-military character is dominant. They were supposed to be a parade or ,,tournament” equipment. These helmets are no different than other kind of armour with respect to technological manufacturing. They are made of the same materials and in a similar manner. Luxurious character and rich ornamentation are no obstacle during the fight. A simple experiment shows that the masks neither hindered observation nor breathing. They were an additional protection and completed the equipment of the heavy Roman cavalry, cataphracti and clibanarii. Written sources also confirm their usage not only in 1st century A.D. The works of Arrian are an extraordinary source referring to ancient warfare, but they may not be treated as directly concerning the Roman heavy cavalry.
Dieser Aufsatz stellt einige Uberlegungen zur Funktion der romischen Helme mit Gesichtsmaske an. ... more Dieser Aufsatz stellt einige Uberlegungen zur Funktion der romischen Helme mit Gesichtsmaske an. Diese Stucke waren einer der wirkungsvollsten Ausrustungsgegenstande der romischen Soldaten, die seit dem 19. Jahrhundert fur gelehrtes Interesse und kontroverse Debatten sorgten. Trotz uberreicher Literatur ist ihre Funktion immer noch Thema zahlreicher Diskussionen. Der Gelehrtenstreit dreht sich immer wieder um einige wenige Interpretationsmoglichkeiten, wovon sich die beiden popularsten gegenseitig ausschliesen: Sie postulieren, dass diese Helme entweder bei Paraden und Festlichkeiten oder in der Schlacht getragen wurden. Unter Einbeziehung der archaologischen und historischen Quellen, von Metallanalysen und der Ergebnisse verschiedener Experimente kommt der Autor zu dem Schluss, dass diese Helme fur beide Gelegenheiten gleich gut geeignet waren.
In March 1999, in connection with construction works on the site was carried out an archaeologica... more In March 1999, in connection with construction works on the site was carried out an archaeological monitoring. It was limited to exploration of foundations of the future building. In sections of the foundation trenches remains of fve archaeological featureswere found. four of them were relics of the Lusatian culture settlement from the earlyIron Age. the subject of this paper is only feature No. 1. It was recorded directly under layer of humus, in trench section (south-eastern wall of the building, fig. 2). It was oval in plan with dimensions of approximately 1.2 × 0.56 m. Its thickness was approximately 0.3 m and its fll was dark grey sand with scorch. the top part of the feature was damaged by ploughing, the traces of which were visible in feature’s plan. Damage to the upper parts of pottery vessels seems to confrm this assumption (Gurtowski 1999, p. 3). In the feature six pottery vessels were found (some completely preserved and some in state enabling reconstruction: type ID bulbous vessel, type XIIA cup, type w-XV/c barrel-shaped clay mug, strainer, type VI e clay bowl, type ID pot and 37 pottery fragments), clay spindle whorl, fossilized sponge and animal bones (two tusks of domestic pig, one tusk of wild boar, one tooth of beaver, mandible fragment of sheep/goat, long bone of a bird from Anserinae subfamily). function of the feature is very puzzling. Lack of scorch in it, no traces of burning on animal bones and artefacts, the size and shape of the pit suggest that we may deal here with poorly preserved inhumation or symbolic burial (of which only south-eastern or southern edge was found). Assuming that it is a grave, its equipment – amongst others discovery of a spindle whorl (czarnecka 1990, pp. 42-43) and a tusk of wild boar – suggests that this could be woman’s or child’s grave (comparing with Masłomęcz burials, Kokowski 2004, p. 30). Perhaps we deal with some kind of foundation sacrifce, which may be evidenced by large amount of animal bones, e.g. tusk of wild boar. Due to the lack of precisely dating elements, the chronology of the grave can be only roughly determined. the occurrence in the assemblage in question type VI e bowl and type XVc mug as well as type ID pot, allow to date the feature no earlier than to phase B2/c1 (see wołągiewicz 1993, pp. 30, 86, List 1D, p. 105, list 6e , p. 125, list 15c.). Attempts to situate the assemblage in a narrower chronological context have no grounds.
This essay offers reflections on the functions of Roman helmets with masks. They were one of the ... more This essay offers reflections on the functions of Roman helmets with masks. They were one of the most effective elements of Roman soldiers’ equipment, arousing scholars’ interest and controversy since the 19th century. Despite abundant literature, their function is still the subject of numerous discussions. Scholars’ views revolve around a few possibilities. Two most popular of such theses supposedly exclude one another. They claim that the helmets were used during parades and festivities or during battles. The author, taking into consideration archaeological sources, historical records, metallographic analyses and the outcome of various experiments seeks to show that these helmets proved to be a perfect solution in both cases.
Uploads
The first part of the work speaks about the place of horse mounted units in the Roman military system. During the first four centuries, the Roman cavalry units underwent several changes. These concerned their number, quality, status, as well as military equipment. Initially organised as allied contingents without Roman citizenship, the units preserved their ethnic features and the modes of combat typical for the populations comprising them. From the II c. onwards the service within these formations – due to prestige reasons, higher salary, and greater future career opportunities – was more and more often selected by the citizens, thus blurring the unique, distinctive traits of the units.
Attempts at reversing this trend were undertaken during the Severan dynasty reign. The declaration of Constitutio Antoniniana expanded the Roman citizenship almost to all free residents of the Roman Empire. Although this document mostly solved the problem of recruitment to the legions, the clause concerning exclusion of dediticii from the citizens exerted a profound impact on the auxiliary forces, including the cavalry. It still allowed to form ethnic units - characterised by a mode of combat distinct from that of the Romans – particularly useful in the activities taking place in rough terrain. Probably, on this basis the new cavalry units were recruited in the III c. – ones which were to become the next century's elite of the whole exercitus romanus.
The Severan policy with respect to the army was a particular foundation for its future organisation. It was at this time that the process of making the high command more prosessional started. The place of amateurs, who had been coming from senators, was more and more often taken by equites for whom the military service was not only a stage in their career, but its goal. The new leaders, as professionals, perfectly understood the importance of the horse mounted units in the army of the time, and as a result of their actions the army grew in numbers and in diversity. Another novelty was the creation of permanent mobile forces among which the cavalry units played a significant part, and the constant proximity to the court was the reason for their improved status.
In the Roman historiography, the myth of Gallienus as the creator of an independent cavalry corps is particularly strong. As a result of his activities the growth in number of horse mounted units was supposed to take place, accompanying their further specialisation. Such an assumption is mostly based on the accounts of George Cedrenus, who lived in the IX c., and is not confirmed by any sources contemporaneous to Gallienus – both, including written and archaeological. Moreover, these rather suggest a completely opposite solution, namely that larger parts of these formations were created much later. The helpful hint in identifying the mounted units which could serve in this ruler's comitatus can be the fact that some of them were not located in the East, or were not included in the Eastern armies. The conspirators would not surround themselves with soldiers whose loyalty they were not certain. That is why, it is possible that the cavalry formations loyal to Gallienus did not take part in the further conquest of the East carried out by Aurelian, nor in the later reorganisation of these terrains by Diocletian, and which, as a result, were listed in sections regarding the Western part of the empire in Notitia Dignitatum.
During the times of tetrarchy, the cavalry started playing a more important role, especially in the newely organised Eastern provinces where it constituted a significant percentage of the units stationed there. In this period, new types of units were created - equites indigenae and cunei equitum. The attempts to reorganise the horse mounted units undertaken at the time are confirmed by the case of equites lanciarii. There are only a few sources concerning these units, dating back to the latter part of III c., whereas in later times there is not even the slightest remark about these riders.. They were probably created as a form of experiment which, for reasons unknown, was subsequently abandoned. At the time, an internal hierarchy of the horse mounted units was also developed and new ranks were introduced, thus acquiring them a certain degree of autonomy which can be confirmed by the separation of the vexillationes from their original legions.
The real increase in the number of cavalry units took place as a result of civil wars, only at the time of Constantine the Great. Their status, and greater privileges than in the case of other soldiers, were confirmed by the emperor's constitutions. In the lists concerning each category of soldiers created by this ruler (comitatenses and limitanei), cavalry is always enumerated in the first place. At this point it had already acquired a full autonomy with its commander, called magister equitum, who was equal in rank to the leader of the infantry - magister peditum. Constantine the Great formed a new horse mounted guard in place of the praetorians. The service in such units, on account of the ruler's proximity, was the most prestigious and the most lucrative, and in order to take it up one needed considerable wealth. The proportion between cavalry and infantry units fixed at this time remained unchanged up to the battle of Adrianople.
In the period following the death of Constantine the Great, until the unprecedented defeat from the hands of the Goths and their allies, the process of forming new units nearly completely ground to a halt and it is difficult to judge which of them were created during the reign of his successors. The only novelty was to supplement the unit titles with the suffixes iuniores or seniores. This was related to the division of units, the main criterion for which was age of the soldiers.
The second part concerns the weaponry of the Roman cavalry. It did not change much in comparison with the previous ages, and in III and IV c. it was almost identical to that used by the infantry. The single differing elements following the creation of fabricae armorum were helmets, and a bit earlier, already in the III c., the manner of strapping, carrying, and the construction of swords.
The third and last part is devoted to the tasks of the cavalry units during war campaigns, which did not change despite the growth in the number and in the status of such soldiers. During marches, the units were occupied with safeguarding the column and reconnaissance. In combat, they mainly served as protection for the main forces, i.e. the heavy infantry. In III and IV c. the horsemen were still not the dominating force in the army, and in fact the Romans themselves could not take advantage of such units successfully enough. During clashes, the cavalry made numerous mistakes (especially the heavy armed units) - their behaviour was marked with cowardice and insubordination, in effect, almost causing a defeat in the battle of Argentoratum, or a catastrophe in the battle of Adrianople. The biggest triumphs however were won only in the subsequent centuries, as parts of the Byzantine army in the East or the barbarian, and later medieval kingdoms of the Western Europe.
Garrett, England by an unnamed metal detectorist (cat. no 85; Tabl. 22). This information reached public in mid-September, when Christie’s Auction House announced the sale of the item and seventh October was set as the date of the auction. The helmet’s value was estimated at £200,000 – 300,000. In spite of fund raising and intervention of the higher authorities against currently effective law, the helmet was
sold to a private person for a stunning amount of £2,330,468.75.
Roman helmets with masks are significantly different in comparison with other types. They were created by adding to existing bowls metal shades with cavities in places of eyes, nose and mouth. Both elements were attached over the forehead in such a way, that one was able to lift up and down the shade without difficulty.
These helmets have raised a great interest of scholars and they have been subjects of many discussions. Origin and methods of becoming a part of Roman military equipment as well as their usage are still to be established.
The very first attempt of their interpretation was undertaken by O. Benndorf in 1878, suggesting that they functioned as post-mortal masks put on a face of the deceased. In his dissertation P. Couissin rejected this explanation and provided two equal theses stating their military or ,,tournament-parade” character.
Next scholars tried to face interpretation of such helmets while describing famous findings such as Chasennard or Newstead.
H. J. Klumbach in his work (1974) categorized and described Roman army helmets found in the territory of Germania. He created a separate category and made a term ,,Gesichtshelme” widely known.
In 1975 H. R. Robinson wrote a basic thesis on Roman armour. Its chapter was dedicated to helmets qualified as sports equipment, among which pieces with shades are present.
Holistic study of the armour recognized as parade equipment was presented by
J. Garbsch. It includes not only the description of helmets, but also other elements of military equipment. Especially worth of attention is chapter by M. Kohlert concerning typology and chronology of the masks.
Circumstances of discovering new exemplars of shades, especially from lower Rhine territory inclined M. Junkelmann to verify the views on usage of early helmets of this kind. After conducting an experiment he noted, that they are suitable for battle. He
coined the thesis on their double function, military and parade, limiting the first one only to the first century A.D.
Roman helmets with masks contain a bowls and metal shade presenting humanface. The bowls, covered with rich ornamentation, generally did not prevail. Depending on the way of attaching these two elements, they are divided into two- and three-parts (fig. 1).
The most of the findings are two-part helmets (fig. 1A). Masks depict a face of a young male or female with a more or less impressive haircut. Bowls and shades were attached with one another by a hinge or hooks under the hairline, a diadem or haircut, at the highest point of the head.
Three-part helmets, consisting of a bowl and a movable shade and a taken out mask (fig. 1B), were created probably in the second part of the second century A.D. A small number of the findings suggests that they were not so popular.
The helmets were mainly made of iron and bronze, although brass and copper
were also present. Some of them were plated with silver. The bowls and masks were made by hammering, their proper form reached by hitting of the hammer. To prevent from deformations of the metal, soft, organic paddings were used. During this process the masks were repeatedly heated to high temperatures. Delicate ornaments were engraved. These helmets were lined with leather or other materials, ensuring comfortable usage.
The most part of the surface of the helmets was covered with decorations
depicting figural scenes, lines, blossom, military signs or hairstyles. Polychromy was used in order to acquire contrast between the mask and the bowl. The masks were frequently plated with silver or gilded occasionally.
Due to the lack of unambiguous archaeological evidence of manufacturing
places of the helmets, their location is still unknown. The production of armour on a state scale was introduced in the times of Diocletian. Earlier there is a lack of any sources confirming the existence of fabricae manufacturing weapon on a massive scale.
With only few bowls preserved the toil of creating typology and chronology was
undertaken by M. Kohlert. As a basis for identification of individual types she adopted the way of attaching mask with bowl, material from which the mask was made of and morphological features of the mask, such as the manner of rendition of the beard and hair.
The origin of Roman helmets with masks, their spreading in the territory of the
Empire and the way of adaptation in Roman army are still mysterious. There are a few hypotheses, but none of them is based on irrefutable evidence.
Helmets with masks in the shape of a human face were known in the Hellenistic
world, in Asia Minor and Syria. The frieze from the portico surrounding the AthenaPolias temple in Pergamon presents such an exemplar (Tabl. 1)
The origin of this kind of equipment relates to an old Roman practice of making
a post-mortal mask for the deceased member of the family. Another clue is also a rite of fighting demonstration during funerals of the members of the Roman elite.
Another thesis points to Thracians as the first users and those, who transferred
these helmets to the Romans. The evidence to support this concept was concentration of the oldest findings of Roman helmets with masks in the territory of Thrace as well as at the places of deployment Thracian units, which approximately match the locations of the helmets discovered in other provinces of the Empire.
A new light on the origin is thrown by the discovery of the oldest Roman mask
from Kalkriese (cat. no 1; Tabl. 3), presenting an entirely different physiognomic
features than the abovementioned exemplars.
N. Hanel, U. Pelltz, F. Willer point to the possibility of acquiring this armour
from Batavians. Despite widespread of this type of helmets, they underline the
concentration of the oldest findings of the Nijmegen-Kops Plateau helmets in lower Germania and in the barbaric territory of the Rhine’s right side (fig. 4).
Current knowledge does not allow us to stipulate unambiguously the origin of
the Roman helmets with masks.
The usage of Roman helmets with masks, similarly to its origin, is not entirely
clear and still is the subject of discussions. Thanks to the testimony of Arrian and due to the lack of direct written and iconographical sources, showing their usage by the Roman army on the battlefield, nowadays the concept of their non-military character is dominant. They were supposed to be a parade or ,,tournament” equipment.
These helmets are no different than other kind of armour with respect to
technological manufacturing. They are made of the same materials and in a similar manner. Luxurious character and rich ornamentation are no obstacle during the fight.
A simple experiment shows that the masks neither hindered observation nor breathing. They were an additional protection and completed the equipment of the heavy Roman cavalry, cataphracti and clibanarii. Written sources also confirm their usage not only in 1st century A.D. The works of Arrian are an extraordinary source referring to ancient warfare, but they may not be treated as directly concerning the Roman heavy cavalry.
It was recorded directly under layer of humus, in trench section (south-eastern wall of the building, fig. 2). It was oval in plan with dimensions of approximately 1.2 × 0.56 m. Its thickness was approximately 0.3 m and its fll was dark grey sand with scorch. the top part of the feature was damaged by ploughing, the traces of which were visible in feature’s plan. Damage to the upper parts of pottery vessels seems to confrm
this assumption (Gurtowski 1999, p. 3).
In the feature six pottery vessels were found (some completely preserved and some in state enabling reconstruction: type ID bulbous vessel, type XIIA cup, type w-XV/c barrel-shaped clay mug, strainer, type VI e clay bowl, type ID pot and 37 pottery fragments), clay spindle whorl, fossilized sponge and animal bones (two tusks of domestic
pig, one tusk of wild boar, one tooth of beaver, mandible fragment of sheep/goat, long bone of a bird from Anserinae subfamily).
function of the feature is very puzzling. Lack of scorch in it, no traces of burning on animal bones and artefacts, the size and shape of the pit suggest that we may deal here with poorly preserved inhumation or symbolic burial (of which only south-eastern or southern edge was found). Assuming that it is a grave, its equipment – amongst others discovery of a spindle whorl (czarnecka 1990, pp. 42-43) and a tusk of wild boar – suggests that this could be woman’s or child’s grave (comparing with Masłomęcz burials, Kokowski 2004, p. 30).
Perhaps we deal with some kind of foundation sacrifce, which may be evidenced by large amount of animal bones, e.g. tusk of wild boar. Due to the lack of precisely dating elements, the chronology of the grave can be only roughly determined. the occurrence in the assemblage in question type VI e bowl and type XVc mug as well as type ID pot, allow to date the feature no earlier than to phase B2/c1 (see wołągiewicz 1993, pp. 30, 86, List 1D, p. 105, list 6e , p. 125, list 15c.). Attempts to situate the assemblage in a narrower chronological context have no grounds.
elements of Roman soldiers’ equipment, arousing scholars’ interest and controversy since the 19th century. Despite
abundant literature, their function is still the subject of numerous discussions. Scholars’ views revolve around a few
possibilities. Two most popular of such theses supposedly exclude one another. They claim that the helmets were used
during parades and festivities or during battles. The author, taking into consideration archaeological sources, historical
records, metallographic analyses and the outcome of various experiments seeks to show that these helmets proved to
be a perfect solution in both cases.
The first part of the work speaks about the place of horse mounted units in the Roman military system. During the first four centuries, the Roman cavalry units underwent several changes. These concerned their number, quality, status, as well as military equipment. Initially organised as allied contingents without Roman citizenship, the units preserved their ethnic features and the modes of combat typical for the populations comprising them. From the II c. onwards the service within these formations – due to prestige reasons, higher salary, and greater future career opportunities – was more and more often selected by the citizens, thus blurring the unique, distinctive traits of the units.
Attempts at reversing this trend were undertaken during the Severan dynasty reign. The declaration of Constitutio Antoniniana expanded the Roman citizenship almost to all free residents of the Roman Empire. Although this document mostly solved the problem of recruitment to the legions, the clause concerning exclusion of dediticii from the citizens exerted a profound impact on the auxiliary forces, including the cavalry. It still allowed to form ethnic units - characterised by a mode of combat distinct from that of the Romans – particularly useful in the activities taking place in rough terrain. Probably, on this basis the new cavalry units were recruited in the III c. – ones which were to become the next century's elite of the whole exercitus romanus.
The Severan policy with respect to the army was a particular foundation for its future organisation. It was at this time that the process of making the high command more prosessional started. The place of amateurs, who had been coming from senators, was more and more often taken by equites for whom the military service was not only a stage in their career, but its goal. The new leaders, as professionals, perfectly understood the importance of the horse mounted units in the army of the time, and as a result of their actions the army grew in numbers and in diversity. Another novelty was the creation of permanent mobile forces among which the cavalry units played a significant part, and the constant proximity to the court was the reason for their improved status.
In the Roman historiography, the myth of Gallienus as the creator of an independent cavalry corps is particularly strong. As a result of his activities the growth in number of horse mounted units was supposed to take place, accompanying their further specialisation. Such an assumption is mostly based on the accounts of George Cedrenus, who lived in the IX c., and is not confirmed by any sources contemporaneous to Gallienus – both, including written and archaeological. Moreover, these rather suggest a completely opposite solution, namely that larger parts of these formations were created much later. The helpful hint in identifying the mounted units which could serve in this ruler's comitatus can be the fact that some of them were not located in the East, or were not included in the Eastern armies. The conspirators would not surround themselves with soldiers whose loyalty they were not certain. That is why, it is possible that the cavalry formations loyal to Gallienus did not take part in the further conquest of the East carried out by Aurelian, nor in the later reorganisation of these terrains by Diocletian, and which, as a result, were listed in sections regarding the Western part of the empire in Notitia Dignitatum.
During the times of tetrarchy, the cavalry started playing a more important role, especially in the newely organised Eastern provinces where it constituted a significant percentage of the units stationed there. In this period, new types of units were created - equites indigenae and cunei equitum. The attempts to reorganise the horse mounted units undertaken at the time are confirmed by the case of equites lanciarii. There are only a few sources concerning these units, dating back to the latter part of III c., whereas in later times there is not even the slightest remark about these riders.. They were probably created as a form of experiment which, for reasons unknown, was subsequently abandoned. At the time, an internal hierarchy of the horse mounted units was also developed and new ranks were introduced, thus acquiring them a certain degree of autonomy which can be confirmed by the separation of the vexillationes from their original legions.
The real increase in the number of cavalry units took place as a result of civil wars, only at the time of Constantine the Great. Their status, and greater privileges than in the case of other soldiers, were confirmed by the emperor's constitutions. In the lists concerning each category of soldiers created by this ruler (comitatenses and limitanei), cavalry is always enumerated in the first place. At this point it had already acquired a full autonomy with its commander, called magister equitum, who was equal in rank to the leader of the infantry - magister peditum. Constantine the Great formed a new horse mounted guard in place of the praetorians. The service in such units, on account of the ruler's proximity, was the most prestigious and the most lucrative, and in order to take it up one needed considerable wealth. The proportion between cavalry and infantry units fixed at this time remained unchanged up to the battle of Adrianople.
In the period following the death of Constantine the Great, until the unprecedented defeat from the hands of the Goths and their allies, the process of forming new units nearly completely ground to a halt and it is difficult to judge which of them were created during the reign of his successors. The only novelty was to supplement the unit titles with the suffixes iuniores or seniores. This was related to the division of units, the main criterion for which was age of the soldiers.
The second part concerns the weaponry of the Roman cavalry. It did not change much in comparison with the previous ages, and in III and IV c. it was almost identical to that used by the infantry. The single differing elements following the creation of fabricae armorum were helmets, and a bit earlier, already in the III c., the manner of strapping, carrying, and the construction of swords.
The third and last part is devoted to the tasks of the cavalry units during war campaigns, which did not change despite the growth in the number and in the status of such soldiers. During marches, the units were occupied with safeguarding the column and reconnaissance. In combat, they mainly served as protection for the main forces, i.e. the heavy infantry. In III and IV c. the horsemen were still not the dominating force in the army, and in fact the Romans themselves could not take advantage of such units successfully enough. During clashes, the cavalry made numerous mistakes (especially the heavy armed units) - their behaviour was marked with cowardice and insubordination, in effect, almost causing a defeat in the battle of Argentoratum, or a catastrophe in the battle of Adrianople. The biggest triumphs however were won only in the subsequent centuries, as parts of the Byzantine army in the East or the barbarian, and later medieval kingdoms of the Western Europe.
Garrett, England by an unnamed metal detectorist (cat. no 85; Tabl. 22). This information reached public in mid-September, when Christie’s Auction House announced the sale of the item and seventh October was set as the date of the auction. The helmet’s value was estimated at £200,000 – 300,000. In spite of fund raising and intervention of the higher authorities against currently effective law, the helmet was
sold to a private person for a stunning amount of £2,330,468.75.
Roman helmets with masks are significantly different in comparison with other types. They were created by adding to existing bowls metal shades with cavities in places of eyes, nose and mouth. Both elements were attached over the forehead in such a way, that one was able to lift up and down the shade without difficulty.
These helmets have raised a great interest of scholars and they have been subjects of many discussions. Origin and methods of becoming a part of Roman military equipment as well as their usage are still to be established.
The very first attempt of their interpretation was undertaken by O. Benndorf in 1878, suggesting that they functioned as post-mortal masks put on a face of the deceased. In his dissertation P. Couissin rejected this explanation and provided two equal theses stating their military or ,,tournament-parade” character.
Next scholars tried to face interpretation of such helmets while describing famous findings such as Chasennard or Newstead.
H. J. Klumbach in his work (1974) categorized and described Roman army helmets found in the territory of Germania. He created a separate category and made a term ,,Gesichtshelme” widely known.
In 1975 H. R. Robinson wrote a basic thesis on Roman armour. Its chapter was dedicated to helmets qualified as sports equipment, among which pieces with shades are present.
Holistic study of the armour recognized as parade equipment was presented by
J. Garbsch. It includes not only the description of helmets, but also other elements of military equipment. Especially worth of attention is chapter by M. Kohlert concerning typology and chronology of the masks.
Circumstances of discovering new exemplars of shades, especially from lower Rhine territory inclined M. Junkelmann to verify the views on usage of early helmets of this kind. After conducting an experiment he noted, that they are suitable for battle. He
coined the thesis on their double function, military and parade, limiting the first one only to the first century A.D.
Roman helmets with masks contain a bowls and metal shade presenting humanface. The bowls, covered with rich ornamentation, generally did not prevail. Depending on the way of attaching these two elements, they are divided into two- and three-parts (fig. 1).
The most of the findings are two-part helmets (fig. 1A). Masks depict a face of a young male or female with a more or less impressive haircut. Bowls and shades were attached with one another by a hinge or hooks under the hairline, a diadem or haircut, at the highest point of the head.
Three-part helmets, consisting of a bowl and a movable shade and a taken out mask (fig. 1B), were created probably in the second part of the second century A.D. A small number of the findings suggests that they were not so popular.
The helmets were mainly made of iron and bronze, although brass and copper
were also present. Some of them were plated with silver. The bowls and masks were made by hammering, their proper form reached by hitting of the hammer. To prevent from deformations of the metal, soft, organic paddings were used. During this process the masks were repeatedly heated to high temperatures. Delicate ornaments were engraved. These helmets were lined with leather or other materials, ensuring comfortable usage.
The most part of the surface of the helmets was covered with decorations
depicting figural scenes, lines, blossom, military signs or hairstyles. Polychromy was used in order to acquire contrast between the mask and the bowl. The masks were frequently plated with silver or gilded occasionally.
Due to the lack of unambiguous archaeological evidence of manufacturing
places of the helmets, their location is still unknown. The production of armour on a state scale was introduced in the times of Diocletian. Earlier there is a lack of any sources confirming the existence of fabricae manufacturing weapon on a massive scale.
With only few bowls preserved the toil of creating typology and chronology was
undertaken by M. Kohlert. As a basis for identification of individual types she adopted the way of attaching mask with bowl, material from which the mask was made of and morphological features of the mask, such as the manner of rendition of the beard and hair.
The origin of Roman helmets with masks, their spreading in the territory of the
Empire and the way of adaptation in Roman army are still mysterious. There are a few hypotheses, but none of them is based on irrefutable evidence.
Helmets with masks in the shape of a human face were known in the Hellenistic
world, in Asia Minor and Syria. The frieze from the portico surrounding the AthenaPolias temple in Pergamon presents such an exemplar (Tabl. 1)
The origin of this kind of equipment relates to an old Roman practice of making
a post-mortal mask for the deceased member of the family. Another clue is also a rite of fighting demonstration during funerals of the members of the Roman elite.
Another thesis points to Thracians as the first users and those, who transferred
these helmets to the Romans. The evidence to support this concept was concentration of the oldest findings of Roman helmets with masks in the territory of Thrace as well as at the places of deployment Thracian units, which approximately match the locations of the helmets discovered in other provinces of the Empire.
A new light on the origin is thrown by the discovery of the oldest Roman mask
from Kalkriese (cat. no 1; Tabl. 3), presenting an entirely different physiognomic
features than the abovementioned exemplars.
N. Hanel, U. Pelltz, F. Willer point to the possibility of acquiring this armour
from Batavians. Despite widespread of this type of helmets, they underline the
concentration of the oldest findings of the Nijmegen-Kops Plateau helmets in lower Germania and in the barbaric territory of the Rhine’s right side (fig. 4).
Current knowledge does not allow us to stipulate unambiguously the origin of
the Roman helmets with masks.
The usage of Roman helmets with masks, similarly to its origin, is not entirely
clear and still is the subject of discussions. Thanks to the testimony of Arrian and due to the lack of direct written and iconographical sources, showing their usage by the Roman army on the battlefield, nowadays the concept of their non-military character is dominant. They were supposed to be a parade or ,,tournament” equipment.
These helmets are no different than other kind of armour with respect to
technological manufacturing. They are made of the same materials and in a similar manner. Luxurious character and rich ornamentation are no obstacle during the fight.
A simple experiment shows that the masks neither hindered observation nor breathing. They were an additional protection and completed the equipment of the heavy Roman cavalry, cataphracti and clibanarii. Written sources also confirm their usage not only in 1st century A.D. The works of Arrian are an extraordinary source referring to ancient warfare, but they may not be treated as directly concerning the Roman heavy cavalry.
It was recorded directly under layer of humus, in trench section (south-eastern wall of the building, fig. 2). It was oval in plan with dimensions of approximately 1.2 × 0.56 m. Its thickness was approximately 0.3 m and its fll was dark grey sand with scorch. the top part of the feature was damaged by ploughing, the traces of which were visible in feature’s plan. Damage to the upper parts of pottery vessels seems to confrm
this assumption (Gurtowski 1999, p. 3).
In the feature six pottery vessels were found (some completely preserved and some in state enabling reconstruction: type ID bulbous vessel, type XIIA cup, type w-XV/c barrel-shaped clay mug, strainer, type VI e clay bowl, type ID pot and 37 pottery fragments), clay spindle whorl, fossilized sponge and animal bones (two tusks of domestic
pig, one tusk of wild boar, one tooth of beaver, mandible fragment of sheep/goat, long bone of a bird from Anserinae subfamily).
function of the feature is very puzzling. Lack of scorch in it, no traces of burning on animal bones and artefacts, the size and shape of the pit suggest that we may deal here with poorly preserved inhumation or symbolic burial (of which only south-eastern or southern edge was found). Assuming that it is a grave, its equipment – amongst others discovery of a spindle whorl (czarnecka 1990, pp. 42-43) and a tusk of wild boar – suggests that this could be woman’s or child’s grave (comparing with Masłomęcz burials, Kokowski 2004, p. 30).
Perhaps we deal with some kind of foundation sacrifce, which may be evidenced by large amount of animal bones, e.g. tusk of wild boar. Due to the lack of precisely dating elements, the chronology of the grave can be only roughly determined. the occurrence in the assemblage in question type VI e bowl and type XVc mug as well as type ID pot, allow to date the feature no earlier than to phase B2/c1 (see wołągiewicz 1993, pp. 30, 86, List 1D, p. 105, list 6e , p. 125, list 15c.). Attempts to situate the assemblage in a narrower chronological context have no grounds.
elements of Roman soldiers’ equipment, arousing scholars’ interest and controversy since the 19th century. Despite
abundant literature, their function is still the subject of numerous discussions. Scholars’ views revolve around a few
possibilities. Two most popular of such theses supposedly exclude one another. They claim that the helmets were used
during parades and festivities or during battles. The author, taking into consideration archaeological sources, historical
records, metallographic analyses and the outcome of various experiments seeks to show that these helmets proved to
be a perfect solution in both cases.