Найденные в предыдущих сезонах монтефортинские шлемы опубликованы в статье: S. Tusa and J. Royal. The landscape of the naval battle at the Egadi Islands (241 B.C.).
Journal of Roman Archaeology 25, 2012. Как мы видим, по крайней мере, один шлем (PW11-0030) содержит граффито с пунийской буквой "
" ("Хе") или кельтиберской "E".
Helmets (Table 2)
Helping to confirm sector PW-A as the battle zone are at least 8 bronze helmets, scattered mostly in a concentrated area (see below). Two cheekpieces (both for the left side, so representative of two helmets) and one hinge connection were also found within the Egadi 6 ram. Seven helmets lay in a limited area of
c.25 m2; the eighth was found in the rocks
c.200 m to the southwest, within 30 m of the location of Egadi 6. All were lying on the bottom and not buried to any significant degree. A further helmet (now in the Favignana Maritime Museum) was reportedly raised from sector PW-A before 2005 by fishermen with static nets. Four helmets, all of the Montefortino type, were raised in 2011 (fig. 11, indicated by PW11 numbers); sections of the dome were missing on two (PW11-0010 and PW11-0031), while the other two were intact. Even though there is no standardization in their size, these four helmets exhibit a number of similar characteristics: {↓26} manufacture from cast bronze that was then worked into a thin dome; a dome with a solid crest knob at its apex (missing on PW11-1101); a thickened lower rim projecting on the back side as a neck guard; a rope motif running around the lower rim and neck guard (fig. 11); and, inside the rope pattern, at least two incised lines (difficult to discern on PW11-0010) around the rim and neck guard. The same decorative features are present on the example in the Favignana museum. After cleaning of PW11-0010, PW11-0011 and PW11-0032, the rope pattern is seen to be twisted in opposite directions on the left and right sides until meeting at the center line. An additional basket-weave pattern runs inside the rope pattern and below the incised lines of the neck guard on PW11-0010. All of the crest knobs seem to be cast and appear seamlessly integrated with the helmets; they are solid metal in their upper portion and do not have holes for attachments. Where discernible, the crest knobs are decorated with a molded pattern of a central circular element with outward radiating spokes. What appears to be possibly a semicircular chaplet is located at the center front edge of helmet PW11-0010; no attachment evidence is found on the interior opposite this feature.
TABLE 2
SELECT MEASUREMENTS AND DESIGN ELEMENTS OF BRONZE HELMETS
Find location
PW11-0010
PW-A
PW11-0030
PW-A
PW11-0031
PW-A
PW11-0032
PW-A
Missing dome
0,35
-
0,45
-
Max. h.
23,4
21,2
26
27,1
Max. diam: neck guard to brim
29,6
24,3
27,3
27,2
Max. diam: ear to ear
25
19,8
23,8
23,1
Max. diam: brim to neck guard
26,1
21,8
24,8
24,5
L. of neck guard at center
3,5
3,1
3,1
3
Distance ear to ear at mid h. (interior)
21
18,4
19,4
20,2
Th. neck guard at center
0,3
0,4
0,4
0,5
Th. brim center
0,4
0,4
0,7
0,7
Diam. of neck guard at brim mid h. (int.)
23,4
19,8
21,6
22,2
Knob h.
-
2,3
2,8
3,3
Knob max. diam.
-
2,4
2,7
2,9
Th. at break at mid h.
0,1
-
0,2
-
Percent encrusted
0,9
0,8
0,95
0,95
Rope decoration
X
X
X
X
Incised line pattern
X?
X
X
X
Rope extension from ear
0,4
0,7
1,2
0,5
Approximate neck guard angle
40˚
40˚
15˚
15˚
Both bronze cheekpieces (fig. 9) were thin (from 1.0 mm at their edges to
c.2.0 mm at their centers) and both have two forward projections for guarding the cheekbone and jaw. The more intact (PW11-034-002) is nearly 15.0 cm long and 8.5 cm wide, with forward projections
c.3.0 cm long. The bronze hinge (PW11-034-003),
c.11.0 cm long, found within the Egadi 6 ram, aligns perfectly with the opposite hinge projections on the cheekpieces. The hinge itself is a flattened bar with two flat projections at each end curled on their extremity; the angle of the curl when found was
c.180°. Projections for hinge connections at the top of cheekpiece PW11-034-002 were formed from similarly-folded flat projections, and the angle of their curl was also
c.180°. At some point the cheekpieces and hinge were separated from their respective helmets, when the curled projections pulled open to some degree; originally they were folded by more than 180° to secure them tightly. Centrally at the top of the hinge piece, on the opposite side from the projections, is a portion of an {↓27} upward-projecting ring (inner diameter
c.0.4-0.5 cm) to hold the fastener connecting the cheekpiece to the helmet; this connector allowed the cheekpiece to swing and maintain a roughly perpendicular angle to horizontal blows. Given the angle of the hinge attachments and the shape of the cheekpieces, their lower portion would have hung slightly canted forward so as to protect both the ear and jaw. After cleaning, the hinge connections on the helmets are clearly discernible on the interior where part of the hinge survived. There are two hinge connections on each side, situated forward of the midline so as to align with the jaws forward of the ears. As there are two attachment points for each cheekpiece on these helmets, they differ from the helmet-hinge attachment for PW11-034-003 that has a single attachment point. An additional hinge attachment was found at the center point of the neck guards of each helmet. Here a single pin held some type of hinge on the underside of the neck guard, where an additional guard was attached.
Italy of the 4th
c. B.
C. saw wide variations in bronze weaponry, including helmet styles, which included the Attic and Chalcidian types in Etruria, the Negau type in N Italy, and the Apulo-Corinthian type in S Italy. A significant change in Roman weaponry occurred with the development of the maniple at the end of the 4th
c. B.
C. This included adoption of the Montefortino type of helmet (
galea or
cassis), an Italo-Celtic hybrid originating in what is now France and Austria during the 5th
c. B.
C. This helmet style is the most prominent in Spain, Gaul and Italy during the 3rd
c.27 It is unclear what types of armor Carthaginian marines or infantry utilized, but we know they employed Celto-Iberian mercenaries as well as mercenaries from S Italy. Therefore it is not possible to be sure of the cultural affiliation of the helmets based solely on their style, but a graffito incised over the molded decorative pattern on the crest knob of helmet PW11-0030 (fig. 11), which appears to form a letter corresponding to a Punic “he” (H) or Celto-Iberian “E”,28 may give a clue.
The helmets from sector PW-A derive from an artifact assemblage with a known context in the mid-3rd
c., whereas other examples of Montefortino helmets are rare outside funerary or votive deposits (excavations on land or battle sites typically do not yield helmets in context29) and as a result their chronology is less secure. Many examples come from 4th- to 2nd-
c. graves, such as the Alfedena necropolis, burials at Chieti (Contrada Sant’Anna), Villafonsina and Villamagna in Chieti, and Pretoro, or from the votive deposit at the sanctuary of Pietrabbondante. Those helmets may be spoils from Roman forces or their Campanian-Sabellian allies. Comparative examples are found at the Museo Guarnacci (V54), dated to the 4th
c., and in the British Museum (dated to the era of the Punic Wars); there are also some 3rd-
c. examples from Perugia and Bologna (fig. 11).30 The form of the Egadi cheekpieces is comparable to the examples shown in fig. 11; they are also of a design common to later finds known from the Agen and Port areas, which came to typify that used throughout the Republi
c.31 However, the comparative examples of fig. 11 have a more rounded dome than the somewhat pointed and taller domes of the Egadi helmets.
__________________________________________
27. Goldman (forthcoming) discusses the history of Republican-era armor and the archaeological evidence.
28. P. Schmitz kindly reviewed this graffito. There does not appear to be an analogous Latin character after the 6th
c. B.
C., nor any such Greek letter-form.
29. Bishop and Coulston 2006, 65.
30. The example from the British Museum (inv. AN 14094001, reg. num. 1975,0603.1, Greek and Roman Antiquities cat. no. Bronze 2726) is 21.7 cm in diameter and 19.2 cm high, with a slightly shorter crest knob. See other comparative examples in fig. 11.
31. Bishop and Coulston 2006, 65.
{↓28}
[img=http://xlegio.ru/ildar/tusa-royal-egadi-elmi-s.jpg]
Fig 11. Bronze helmets from site sector PW-A (photos by J. Royal). a: helmet in Favignana Maritime Museum reportedly raised by fisherman (J. Royal, with permission of Favignana Maritime Museum). b: Museo Civico Archeologico di Bolgna, Benacci necropolois, example from grave 953, inv. MCABo 28233; (image and information provided by L. Minarini, Museo Civico Archeologico di Bologna, and Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Perugia). c: from San Giuliana (inv. SG/36/1). d: Frontone (inv. 362 from tomb 14/6/1886), and e: Monteluce (inv. 324 from tomb 19/4/1887 and one from tomb 5/2/1887, dated to 350-300 B.
C.) (images and information provided by M. Pagano, Soprintendente per I Beni Archeologici dell’Umbria).
