All discovered within the fort grounds, inside buildings either to the south of the via principialis or north of the via praetoria, the site contains a mix of what appear to be Intercisa-type and perhaps a Berkasovo-type as well, all dated (some roughly) to the 4^th Century AD. 

Although it is unclear exactly how these helmets were pieced together, we have dubbed them the “Iatrus I – VI” for convenience reading this article and viewing the photographs (although III – VI are small finds rather than complete items). 

The first of our helmets, the Iatrus I, was unearthed in 1992 in a warehouse/workshop room south of the via principialis, amongst the rubble of the upper floor. It was found in association with several ceramic shards of amphorae, as well as 40 coins from Constantius II (AD337 – 361), fragments of purposefully cut metal sheets (of an unknown, unfinished product), and a damaged but partially repaired onion-button fibulae and shield boss. As with all the helmets in this collection, the Iatrus I is formed of an iron bowl coated in gold-plated copper sheeting (less than 0.5mm thick; 0.2-0.4mm depending on location – the standard thickness for Late Roman gilding). Miks notes there are traces of both vicious attempts to remove the gilding and traces of fire damage as well. The helmet remains consist of a two-part dome without earholes and a central ridge (reconstructed in the photos below), the latter of which contained the remnants of some mushroom rivets as did the right-hand cheek flap. We also see a neck guard at the back. Due to the lack of browband, our immediate reaction is to group the Iatrus I into the Intercisa-type; although Miks lists it as a Berkasovo-type Variant 2a, the lack of said browband makes this classification somewhat irregular. Notably, however, the Iatrus I does have a rather accentuated horizontal rib along the lower edge (clearest in the Pustelak reconstruction); this is a rather unique feature amongst any helmet discussed thus far, and makes a solid classification more difficult. We shall therefore tentatively place this into the Intercisa-type, although were we to put a “variant” typology together (which we are, perhaps fortunately, not) the Iatrus would certainly merit its own. 

Our inventively named “Iatrus II” was also discovered in 1992 in a building south of the via principialis among the ruins of what we believe to be a depot room of some kind, associated with the same variety of ceramic shards as the Iatrus I. The fragments available for inspection also point towards this being of the Intercisa-type; a bipartite iron bowl without ear cuts, the surface boasting small traces of a copper sheet overlay, as well as traces of both fire damage and violent removal to this precious metal layer. This helmet was also found with a handful of non-ferrous rivets. Sadly, it is too damaged to interpret much more. 

The third – sixth finds from the site are all from a different location; north of the via praetoria, in a room with an unknown purpose. Whilst the finds are technically separate, it has been suggested they may be from the same helmet. This is unprovenanced speculation, however, and sadly unfounded as the fragments come from different locations on the site.  

Our first finds group, number III, was unearthed in 1993 on a street west of a building on the north side of the via praetoria. From the shape, they appear to belong to a cheek-piece fragment, potentially from either an Intercisa-type or a Berkasovo-type. Made of iron and without traces of precious metal, they are also sadly without any contextual finds to help us with dating. 

Finds group number IV appear to be similar pieces from an opposite-side cheek piece. Found in 1995, two years after the III fragments, on the same side of the via praetoria but inside a different building. These could, again, potentially be from either helmet type. 

Find number V is quite interesting; as Miks points out, this fragment appears to be a plate from a quadripartite/sexpartite helmet bowl, which would almost certainly make it part of a Berkasovo-type helmet (Variant 1, if we wish to be specific). Again, frustratingly, this fragment was found without any other dating material to speak of. 

Found in the same location, Find number VI may or may not be part of the same helmet. A rather unremarkable fragment with what appears to be the arch of an ear-hole, it sadly tells us extraordinarily little. 

Below we see a superb reconstruction of the Iatrus I by the Pustelak Brothers Workshop; note the inclusion of the accentuated horizontal rib running around the lower edge, slightly above where we would expect the traditional brow-band to be. This gives the helmet a very unique look without spoiling the delicate beauty of the piece, and it has been suggested this is perhaps a reinforcement band around the helmet base to protect better against blows. 

It could be argued that the gilt-sheeting over the helmet should include the delicate repousse work we have seen so far on all such helmets, however the horizontal rib may have made such a task unfeasibly difficult, thus resulting in the craftsman leaving the piece plain as we see here. Regardless, it is a beautiful example of Late Roman craftsmanship and would serve perfectly as the helmet of any 4^th – early 5^th Century legionary. 

The fragments of Find V and VI are particularly intriguing, as it may be an unusual case of finding a Berkasovo helmet (and perhaps a rather ornate one at that, as a sexpartite bowl is most famously also seen in the Deurne) and Intercisa helmets on the same site in close proximity and (likely) dateline. 

Sadly, without further finds from the same context, it is unlikely we will ever be able to piece together what the final product may have looked like. 

Photos of the original finds and museum reconstructions courtesy of Christian Miks, reproduction by the Pustelak Brothers Art Workshop.