During my recent trip to Rome I was lucky enough to have time to visit the 'Museo de Civilta Romano' at the EUR where they have plaster casts taken of the entire Column in 1903. The casts, commissioned by Napoleon III are in a much better state of preservation than the original Column - therefore details now lost to erosion and air pollution are easily identified on the copies. The casts are all displayed at eye-level which made viewing a real pleasure!

Trajan's Column - Rome

Completed in 113, the Column of Trajan gives us a great insight into both the commentary of the Dacian wars and the soldiers' equipment in use at the time. Here however, we are to discuss the helmets. The majority of the helmet styles seen on the monument are of a typical 'attic' shape with a ring as a crest finial. No such helmets have been found in the archaeological record, however, there are some depictions of helmets that are more recognizable, such as cross-braced Imperial Gallic and Italic types (HRR classification), Coolus types, and also decorated helmets like the examples from Hebron and a cavalry helmet from Xanten.

In the Dacian theatre of battle, infantry helmets underwent a fundamental alteration in design primarily (it would seem) to add extra protection against the 'falx' - the traditional sickle-like weapon wielded by the Bastarnae tribesman of Dacia. This came in the form of applying cross-band bracing to the bowl of the infantry helmets to both strengthen the helmet and assist in the deflection of downward blows form this most fearsome of weapons. We see this type of cross-bracing depicted in sculpture on both Trajan's Column and on the Tropaeum Traiani metopes. Both auxiliary and legionary soldiers shown on both monuments are seen with this modification.

From the archaeological record, we have five examples of this type of helmet. The earliest form being the retro-fitted Imperial Gallic type helmet from Berzobis, wherein the additional bracing was applied by removal of the existing crest fitting and fixed over the eyebrow decoration. Note the rivet positioned beneath the eyebrow where the pupil of the eye would be. The bracing is of semi-circular section and appears to be a crude 'field modification'. The ear guards are worked from the bowl itself rather than applied. This helmet was found after Robinson published his book.

There are three monuments at Adamklissi: a mausoleum, an altar, and a trophy, all situated near the town in the region of the Dobrudja (RO). The trophy was constructed in AD 107/8 and dedicated to Mars Ultor, taking the form of a drum surmounted by a large trophy on a hexagonal plinth. The drum was surrounded by carved reliefs on panels (metopes) which depicted scenes from one of the conflicts in Dacia, probably one or both of the Trajanic Dacian Wars. A series of 54 decorated relief panels (or 'metopes') formed a frieze around the monument. Each metope was 1.58m high by 1.16m wide. Most (a total of 48) are now in the site museum at Adamklissi, but one (Metope XXVIII) is to be found in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul.

The monument was completed only one year after the end of the second Dacian War and the construction and sculpture is believed to have been undertaken by the serving soldiers themselves. The equipment is certainly more diverse than that depicted on the Colum at Rome, and possibly reflects more accurately what the soldiers were wearing at the time - the sculptors having first-hand experience of the equipment rather than Rome artists who only had written descriptions and local garrisons such as the praetorians and vigeles to compare against.

Again, cross-braced helmets are seen on the metopes. Various forms are depicted some with crest finials. Others are depicted without cross-bracing but in a similar shape and style. Once again our first comparison would be the helmet from Berzobis, (See above). However, a second type of helmet is also seen on the monument - one that has a crest finial.

Another variant of the Gallic 'I' type (also unknown to Robinson) is from a private collection and was discovered at Carnuntum (Petronell) Austria. Much plainer in its manufacture in that it does not feature any raised eyebrow or neck guard step decoration, decorative rivet bosses or side tubes. (Two helmets of Robinson's Auxiliary B type ,one from Mainz and the other kept at Cardiff ex de Waldens collection feature almost identical bowls) However it does feature the very same type of curved neck guard and crest final. It has a distinct variation (a feature not observed elsewhere) in two iron cheek pieces with copper-alloy edging. The right cheek guard has the remains of what could be a figural brass decoration, or a separate item rust-welded to the cheek guard. The embellishment (if it was such) is not a feature of the left cheek guard.

A great deal of discussion has been made with regard to the accuracy of the equipment depicted on the Column of Trajan. However, it would seem that despite the obvious artistic license of the many sculptors that worked on the Column, (seven individual styles have been identified) the helmets do seem to reflect what we have from the archaeological record to a greater degree. We see helmets with cross-bracing which appear nowhere else other than on Trajanic monuments as well as earlier Coolus types and decorated helmets also paralleled in archaeology.

The metopes of the Tropaeum Traiani are likely to have been carved by the soldiers themselves rather than by the more traditional sculptors of the capital, thereby conveying a rather more accurate rendering of the equipment in use at the time of Trajan's Dacian campaigns. For example, on the Column we do not see the manica in use or the wearing of scale armour, but on the Tropaeum they are both common. On the Tropaeum we also see the cross-braced helmets in a more accurate shape as opposed to the traditional 'Hellenistic' style employed by the artisans on the Column , as well as helmets with crest finials mirrored by the earlier Coolus type helmets and helmets of the Imperial Gallic 'I' type.

Although the style of rendering the equipment differs between the two monuments, it is clear that the helmets are depicted reasonably accurately enough for them to be identified from the existing archaeological finds and can be corroborated by their dating and find contexts - albeit the Column scenes do show a rather Hellenistic outlook in the shaping of the neck and cheek guards.

Peronis 2008