The context of the find remains somewhat unclear; salvaged by a farmer while plowing in 2006 (and subsequently purchased by the Vojvodjanski museum of Novi Sad), the helmet fragments were contained within a simple ceramic jug of local of local manufacture.

This helmet is formed of a two-part bowl with a separate brow-band, meaning it is of the Berkasovo-type, the second variant if we are to judge by our previous helmet posts. 110 fragments constituted the original find, formed of parts of the drift-decorated, gilded silver sheet of what was probably an iron helmet (as with the Deurne helmet, the original metal bowl and cheek pieces were not preserved). The fragments were from the outer silver sheet of the helmet ripped from the original core and folded around each other in the form of a scroll. The find also contained two fragments of a nasal guard with eyebrows and a relatively even, but slightly bulging, central ridge. This helmet has notably wide cheek flaps, as well as a neck guard and two ornamental plates originally placed either side of the brow-band.

The right cheek piece bears two lines of a Latin script near the top; (the upper line has been scraped onto the surface; the lower line punched in): it is difficult to read but seems to suggest “LL TAT/ LAT”. Some of the letters appear to be in Roman cursive, some in rustic capital, making an interpretation rather difficult. The first three letters in particular bear little resemblance to modern equivalents, but one could certainly argue they are markedly similar to a cursive handwriting style. The explanation could be a myriad of reasons; the individual making these marks may have had poor technical skill in addition to making the marks after manufacture was completed thus making the letters rather unrecognisable, there may be a deliberate reason for combining multiple fonts or handwriting styles, or the damage over time post-deposition has led to a deformation of the script rendering it unreadable.

The neck guard is, as per usual for helmets of this type, attached with a buckle suspension. Of note included in the find are 16 decorative silver ball-head rivets and 18 mushroom-head rivets as decorative and connecting elements of the helmet. As we can see from the below images, the decorative repousse work is quite striking; geometric patterns adorn the edges of the bowl and cheek plates (as is indeed common for decorative Berkasovo-type helmets), and it is not hard to imagine that a gilt helmet displaying such decorations and studded with silver rivets would look quite striking. The elegant teardrop-shaped repousse work on the browband plates and pearlescent silver rivets would have drawn the eye of an onlooker.

The deposition of the helmet fragments within a ceramic container is of particular interest; the placement within the container is not only deliberate but also a common feature of contemporary coin hoards, suggesting that the helmet was neither lost in battle nor cast into a spoil heap, nor even misplaced through some careless accident. This is less surprising than it sounds, however, as the Jarak helmet is no the only example of such an occurrence; the Heteny site revealed the remains of silver-gilt sheeting originally belonging to at least two helmets, and a hoard from the River Meuse contained the silver sheeting from an Intercissa-type helmet alongside some late 4th-early 5th Century coinage (more on those helmets in a later post).

Due to the similarity of the Jarak helmet to contemporaries from Heteny, Berkasovo, and Koblenz, we can speculatively date this particular piece to the 4th Century, and possibly into the 5th Century as well; the teardrop repousse work we can see on the images below (on the browband plates) is similar to the Heteny finds and does not appear on any other known finds of Berkasovo-type helmet, suggesting the two are somewhat analogous. The Heteny’s dating of late 4th – early 5th Century could suggest the Jarak helmet shares this dateline.

As Duatova-Rusevljan and Vujovic aptly point out, the area in which the helmet was uncovered (Srem) was a hotbed of conflict throughout the 4th Century, both between Romans and incursors from across the Danube as well as internal civil strife. This could go some way into surmising who the original owner of the helmet may have been. Citing the Battle of Cibalae (AD 314 or 316) during the civil war of Constantine I and Licinius as the catalyst, the theory suggests that the helmets at both Jarak and Berkasovo were deposited by members of Licinius’ retreating forces after his defeat at Constantine’s hands. Zozimus describes a rather hasty retreat from the battle by the losing party, taking only minimal provisions with them for the journey, making their way to Licinius’ holdings at Sirmium before moving on to Thrace to levy more troops; the quick retreat could provide an opportunity for Licinius’ troops to have deposited the items we are investigating. The posited theory makes a good deal of sense. Indeed, the Berkasovo II helmet is noted for the inscription “VICIT LICINIANA” – a suggestion that the owner was a staunch support of Licinius.

Duatova-Rusevljan and Vujovic carry on to note that, if a route is planned from Vincovici (modern site of Cibalae) through Berkasovo, Sirmium and Jarak, an almost straight line route can be plotted which would fit the main route of transportation and passage through the Srem territory; eagle-eyed readers will note that all of these locations are a site at which Roman helmet fragments from the period have been found, the Jarak and Berkasovo finds in particular being deposited in a context nearby a Roman villa – perhaps being used as refuges for Licinius’ battered forces during his retreat from Cibalae. In such a swift retreat action as described by Zozimus, any wounded soldiers too injured to continue may have been left behind, and those who died while their comrades were still present may indeed have been buried rather than being left by the roadside; this could explain the burial-like deposits of these helmets.

General civil strife and invasions continued in the region for at least the next half-century including the vicious battle of Mursa in AD 351 between the forces of Constantius II and Magnentius, the seizure of Sirmium in AD 361 by Julian, as well as regular invasions by Sarmatian and Quadian tribes. Ammianus Marcellinus describes these invading barbarians’ tactics, noting that they preferred swift ambush attacks to conventional battles; it has been therefore suggested that the Jarak helmet’s owner was a Roman soldier caught up in such an ambush (although by necessity the nature of the deposit would require his comrades to return to the battle site, strip the gilt sheeting from his helmet and then make a subsequent burial). Using the same thought process, it has also been suggested that these helmets could in fact have been deposited by barbarian troops who, having looted them from fallen Romans, opted to bury them for later retrieval rather than carry them along as they advanced. Perhaps they never got the chance to retrieve their spoils…

The overall unrest and frequent civil war that reigned in the region has given weight to a suggestion that there is a possibility these helmets were deliberately hidden by the owners, as they could be ill-advised items to wear during such turbulent times where each day could result in them being on the “wrong side” of the civil conflict; whilst perhaps a little far-fetched, distinctive pieces such as the Berkasovo II which seemingly proclaims loyalty to Licinius could possibly present a risk to a soldier caught on the wrong side of the territory. Items with these declarations are not entirely uncommon; the Deurne and Berkasovo II helmets feature inscriptions declaring either the unit the soldier served with or the emperor to whom they had declared allegiance, and objects with similar inscriptions have been found that were seemingly presented as gifts by the high-ranking figure in question (with their own name on) to loyal commanders as a reward for their service. Whilst this is mainly a propaganda technique to encourage continued loyalty and commitment, an officer or trooper on the losing side of a conflict wearing such an item could have sought to hide it to avoid the inherent danger presented by the inscriptions.

In the end, as ever, it is likely we will never be completely sure who the owner of the Jarak helmet was. Several suggestions abound as to his character or perhaps his fate, but as with most of the helmets we have discussed thus far (and will do in the future) we will probably never know. We can at least surmise that he was a soldier in the Roman army active in the province of Pannonia during (likely) the 4th Century AD; he was a man of some status, as the repousse work and silver rivets seem to indicate, perhaps a junior or mid-level officer in the army of Licinius (or one of his later compatriots).

All in all, the Jarak helmet is a thing of beauty and an item we would certainly like to see more reproductions of in the future.

Images courtesy of Velika Dautova-Rusevljan and Miroslav Vujovic, and Christian Miks.