This article deals with a helmet that has been the source of some debate and indeed controversy in the Roman archaeological world, the Christie’s helmet(s). Named after the auction house in which one of the examples was sold, these helmets have been argued over for quite some time due to the conditions of preservation, the convenience of their sudden appearance (as a pair, no less) in the public eye and a similarity to modern reconstructions rather than contemporary finds. 

Header image shows group member Daniel Kerr wearing a reproduction by the Pustelak Brothers Art Workshop, photograph courtesy of Christopher Doyle. 

This helmet has also been reconstructed as a 3D model for you to view by Pablo Rodriguez below.

We have two helmets to consider, which for convenience we will dub the Christies I and Christies II (other naming conventions are abound, however for simplicity we will keep to the simple “I” and “II” system we have used in earlier posts). The first was originally from a German private collection since at least the early 1970s and was sold at Christie’s Auction House on the 9th December 2005 for $26,400. The second was also originally from a private collection and exhibited as part of the “Attila und die Hunnen” exhibition of the Historisches Museum der Pfalz, Speyer. Since the 1980s it had lain in a private collection in America before being sold at the Hermann Historica auction in Munich in April 2010 for 62,000 Euros. 

Unfortunately, given the provenance being an auction house, we have very little other data to work from. 

Both helmets are of the Berkasovo-type (variant II, to be specific), a type familiar to long-term viewers. Curiously, unlike all other examples seen so far of this type the Christie’s is completely devoid of the precious metal coating we have come to expect. Both have a superbly-shaped nasal bar and eyebrow, however, and the overall shape is very elegant. The neck and cheek guards are attached with external hinges which, if the helmets are completely genuine, would date them to between the late 3rd – early 4th Centuries AD. 

This of course leads us neatly onto the discussion surrounding these helmets; fake or genuine? As has been pointed out by several commentors over the years, there are several reasons to initially doubt the provenance of these undeniably beautiful pieces.

Firstly, the most obvious; the state of preservation. Both helmets seem remarkably preserved, with the rust patina on each being suspiciously homogenous. By itself this is good reason to at least treat the helmets with suspicion, however such quality of preservation is not unknown (and has even been surpassed); the Coppergate Helmet unearthed in York, for example, was also found in remarkable condition. One counter-argument posited that the helmets had been painted with something to cover up a restoration and the helmets were made of many fragments; a fact the restorer wished to disguise. The helmets do (on closer inspection) include elements of modern restoration with the tip of the nasal and most of the right cheek piece on the II have been reconstructed with synthetic resin. A full analysis using X-ray notes that these are the only real elements of restoration to be found on the helmets and the overall condition was excellent with no traces of deformation. One contrast between the two helmets is that the II, unlike the I, appears to have been treated with modern abrasives, possibly including a wash with sulphides. The condition (particularly the lack of dents or damage) could potentially indicate deposition in a grave chamber, storage room or a similar environment with protection from the soil pressure so many finds lack.

The second stipulation that the helmets are fakes comes in the form of the reconstructed nose guard. The nasal on the Christie’s bears a striking resemblance to the nasal found on the Budapest helmet, which is a hypothetical reconstruction. This argument is relatively easily put to bed, however, when comparing the Christie’s nasal bar to the Deurne (found in 1910) and Berkasovo (found in 1955), examples which feature a remarkably similar nasal bar design – the Christie’s also features embellishments on the brow tips not found on the two former examples. If anything, this argument works in favour of the Christie’s when one considers that in the 1970s (roughly the earliest we can trace these helmets back to), there was very little widely-available information on late Roman helmets to be found, particularly outside of academic circles, making it far more difficult to copy a reconstruction than one may first think.

The legitimacy of the helmets is (and likely always will be) called into question by the lack of any archaeological excavation whatsoever having uncovered them. Without any scientific provenance or publication, the two near-identical Christie’s helmets simply appeared in the public eye within a decade of each other, in remarkable condition and commanding a price of five figures each. It is understandably a suspicious circumstance. Indeed, the original auction text for the sale of the Christie’s II makes a reference to its near-identical twin. Regrettably, there is no solid counter-argument to this point in the defence of these helmets, but equally there is no hard proof that they did indeed simply appear out of nowhere thanks to a nefarious modern forger. It is possible that the two helmets were produced as part of a batch in the same factory and survived in equally fortunate circumstances to the modern day; indeed, the popularity and prevalence of the bipartite ridge helmet has long been put down to ease of construction making it suitable for mass manufacture (a task made easier by the lack of precious metal cover on the Christie’s).

The question of whether this makes the Christie’s helmets unsuitable for reconstruction and reenactment purposes will likely never have a concrete answer; as such it is down to the interpretation of the various sides of the debate by the individual in question (or their group) on whether to use the Christie’s for an impression.

Whatever stance one takes in the argument, however, the Christie’s helmets are undeniably very pretty pieces of kit and a well-reconstructed version is a fantastic addition to any panoply. Indeed, the similarity between the two helmets, if genuine, could be justification to suggest examples of Roman factories producting set patterns of equipment rather than those of individual preference.