+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology (/showthread.php?tid=14246)
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - Caratacus - 01-08-2009
Quote:I believe is idispensable to follow a working method, to be pratical.
That's a good point to start, as it gives a framework for us to proceed. As you say, the question is which groups to include at Level III!
Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - marcos - 01-08-2009
so , lets go with ideas about level III !
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - caiusbeerquitius - 01-08-2009
What about helmets about which we don´t know whether they were cavalry or infantry helmets? For example the face helmets (Heddernheim), which as such would be categorized as cavalry helmet, but for which we also have evidence that it was worn by infantry?
Is the cavalry / infantry split really necessary?
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - Peroni - 01-08-2009
I would agree that the Heddernheim is very much a type of its own as are many infantry and cavalry types.
Perhaps level 2 should be not whether the helmet is infantry or cavalry, (for the most part this is reasonably obvious from the form of the helmet itself) but whether it is of Montefortino, Coolus, Weisenau, Ribchester Heddernheim etc etc ad nausium.
Mike wrote...
Quote:That's a good point to start, as it gives a framework for us to proceed. As you say, the question is which groups to include at Level III!
Perhaps crest fitting, occipitals eyebrow decoration? again the list is potentially very long!
But, removing the level 2 infantry/cavalry allows for the level 3 to be more concise without introducing a level 4 or 5 in most cases.
Most* helmets will fall into categories 1 - 4 at most without need of 5 unless there are specific differences (i.e. the Gallic F with the repaired crest fitting of Italic form from Sisak)
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - caiusbeerquitius - 01-08-2009
Time-frame? I suggest for discussion for the period beginning with Caesar:
Montefortino
(Buggenum?)
Mannheim (Jockey-cap)
Weiler /Koblenz-Bubenheim
Hagenau (Coolus)
Weisenau (Imp-Gal and Imp-Ital)
Niederbieber
Heddernheim
Pfrondorf
Worthing
(Mask-Helmets: "Straubing?")
Guisborough / Theilenhofen
Deir-el-Medineh
Intercisa (several)
Burgh Castle
Republic gets quite difficult. There is already a working typology after region of origin, mainly.
Also: What to do with the eastern and western Celtic helmet traditions?
Russell-Robinson Helmet typology - Paullus Scipio - 01-08-2009
Howard/SPC wrote:
Quote:Could I just query that Montefortino helmets "evolved from a native Italian type"?....sorry for any confusion caused. By "native Italian", I meant helmets made in Italy, in contrast to what I wrote next:
Quote:On the other hand the 'Coolus/jockey-cap type' originate with Gallic smiths in the Coolus-Marne district, evolving from a native gallic type...i.e. those made in Gaul.
Of course, the original proto-'Montefortino' types were also of Celtic origin appearing around the end of the 5th C BC, and arrived in Italy with the Celtic invasions. It quickly became the most common type in Northern Italy, and was widely used by the Roman Army and its Italian Allies with the addition of cheekpieces. This 'Montefortino' with cheek-pieces can thus be called a 'native Italian' type. Cheekpieces were in turn adopted by the Celts, often in the shape/form of the Samnite-style 'triple-disc' breastplates.
By the late 1st C BC, they had been made in Italy, and even 'mass-produced' for several hundred years.
Once Rome began to expand beyond Italy, 'locally' manufactured arms and armour start to appear in the Roman army, first with Scipio's capture of the Carthaginian arsenal at Cartagena, then in Southern Gaul during Caesar's conquests giving rise to new 'types' of weapons - which was the point of my post contrasting these newer 'types' with traditional 'made in Italy/native Italian' types.
I guess the point here is that we should not fall into the trap of basing a typology purely on superficial appearance ( e.g. lumping together Monefortino and Coolus 'D' types), but as R-R recognised, also take into account construction methods/metal-working traditions/cultural origins of the helmet as well.
Howard/SPC wrote:
Quote:Could the Montefortino type of helmet perhaps have emerged and somewhat achieved its characteristic form about 1000 BC among the Central European Urnfield cultures (from whom both Italics and Celts emerged [1]) rather than later in Italy?Personally, I would say not, because none of the helmets ( with the possible exception of 3) display characteristics of the Italian 'Montefortino', or even cheekpiece-less Celtic 'proto-Montefortino' helmets (one-piece finial drawn from bowl, flange on rim extending into neck-guard, bowl shape etc) - and I am conscious that not every 'Montefortino' has all the characteristics of the type - inevitable in an era of individual craftsmanship. One cannot show an evolutionary link either in 'style' or construction method etc in the examples chosen - too many 'missing links', if you will.( again with the possible exception of 3).
This individual craftsmanship gives rise to another problem of 'typologies'. With rare exceptions, most representatives that have come down to us are a single example from a particular time/place/workshop, meaning that if looked at in detail, each one is 'individual'. How can one tell if a particular find is a unique 'one-off', or a single surviving representative of a type produced by the hundred or thousand? Currently, in many cases, we even have to use guesswork to allocate a particular helmet as 'legionary','cavalry', or 'auxiliary' for example ( and I'd bet the distinction is quite blurred anyway).
Then, of course, there are the many partial finds/fragments, all but impossible to allocate a 'type' to.
To my mind it is difficult if not impossible to go much beyond the broad style of classification of R-R or something similar( in which case why re-invent the wheel?). As Mike Bishop has pointed out, any typology must be capable of evolving as new finds come to light. When R-R put forward his study, it could only be 'frozen/crystallised' in book form but armed with on-line technology, why not build on that, rather than start anew?
Any absolutely new information can be categorised by extending R-R's classifications or adding new branches/sub-branches, as is going to be the case with any 'new' typology framework anyway ! :?
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - Caratacus - 01-08-2009
Quote:Perhaps level 2 should be not whether the helmet is infantry or cavalry, (for the most part this is reasonably obvious from the form of the helmet itself) but whether it is of Montefortino, Coolus, Weisenau, Ribchester Heddernheim etc etc ad nausium.
Well, if we do this we are no further forward than we were to start with - back discussing whether a helmet is Montefortino or Coolus. We could simply add one further category to Level 2: "undecided".
Quote:Republic gets quite difficult. There is already a working typology after region of origin, mainly.
There is? Then why are we bothering?
Surely Republilcan Rome is easy - just M or C (for infantry at least). This illustrates just some of the difficulty of attempting a typology based on dates. Concentrate on the physical characteristics of the helmets - that's all we need to consider. Anything else is a red herring. I repeat - we do not have reliable dates in the majority of cases and any tytpology must work for ALL CASES!Quote:I suggest for discussion for the period beginning with Caesar
There were Romans before there was Caesar.
When considering a typology, I think we should appreciate that HRR didn't do too bad a job of things. There are problems with deciding whether a helmet is M or C, there are considerations as to whether a division between IG and II is a fair one (i.e. whether it really exists at all) and there may be things that we have to consider wrt to cavalry helmets (possibly too many, or even too few sub-divisions?) There may also be questions concerning the Agen-Port types (why are these considered together? They are really very different in appearence - whatever their origins.)
Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)
Russell-Robinson Helmet Typology - Paullus Scipio - 01-08-2009
Caratacus/Mike wrote:
Quote:When considering a typology, I think we should appreciate that HRR didn't do too bad a job of things....agreed!
His work was ground-breaking in it's day, has been used as a foundation ever since, and has not been surpassed. Quote: There are problems with deciding whether a helmet is M or C,...as indicated in an earlier post, despite similarities in appearance and the 'cross-over' of characteristics, it is possible ( I believe ) to distinguish the two. Do you have a particular example/examples in mind where it is difficult to decide one way or another?
Quote:there are considerations as to whether a division between IG and II is a fair one (i.e. whether it really exists at all)...like the M/C considerations, the types begin as distinct and separate, but each gradually absorbs characteristics of the other ( in broad terms) and converge in their characteristics, yet can be distinguished. Do you have specific examples in mind?
Having said this, R-R himself wrote: "This group of helmets consists of the ones that I consider to be the products of Italian workshops made to accord with those produced for the Legions in Gaul.The evidence for the classification may be regarded as tenuous, but I believe that the majority have something in common with Greco-Etruscan and Italian helmets of Republican times." ( my emphases). Once again, R-R is going beyond appearance/style and taking into account the cutural/evolutionary/constructional factors.
Quote:There may also be questions concerning the Agen-Port types (why are these considered together? They are really very different in appearence - whatever their origins.)....again R-R gave his reasoning - although they might be considered different, they shared certain characteristics (raised re-inforcements;identical cheekpieces, construction methods etc) but his main reason was that between them they represented the ancestors of Imperial Gallic types. In fact it was R-R who distingushed between the two, which previously had been considered part of the same group...
"The other variant of Iron Gallic helmet - the best example of which was found at Port-bei-Nidau - was also included in Ritchie's Agen classification; but it is of such a markedly different character, apart from it's cheekpieces, that I felt that it's findspot should share in the title and and the joint ancestorship of the Roman Imperial helmet would then be more clearly defined."
Now of course, R-R's criteria/choices are somewhat subjective, and may be varied, or even different ones chosen altogether, but it can be argued that for the most part his Typology has stood the test of time, and as I remarked earlier, given individual craftsmanship, some of the distinctions ( and this applies to any typology) are going to be blurred, but I believe by and large his reasoning and typology still holds true - hence in my view better to build on his work than begin anew, especially when it is evident that some of the suggestions put forward here lack R-R's erudite understanding of the subject.
H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - Spurius Papirius Cursor - 01-09-2009
I'm heading off for a week "up the coast" (Paullus, you may feel sorry for me as I survey the parade from Aromas on Hastings Street) and haven't had time to digest the latest on this thread.
Could I just throw in the following:
(1) This is one of the fastest-growing threads I've seen and it's a credit to the commitment of participants.
(2) It is true, as Paullus indicates, that much input won't be up to the scholarship of Robinson. However, that in itself isn't a problem I feel. A real problem is perhaps that most of us don't have a copy of Robinson's opus to inspect. If the intention of the thread is to go "Beyond Robinson", then a lot of participants (me, for example!) are at a disadvantage.
(3) Given (2), does anyone know whether Robinson's book is available as an e-book? I note Google is negotiating with a number of parties at the moment to loosen the shackles on its book-search facility.
(4) Those of us who can actually access museum or collection items are in a wonderful position, having not only visual access to the items themselves, but probably access to their documentation.
Cheers - back up for air in a week
Howard / SPC
Russell-Robinson Helmet Typology - Paullus Scipio - 01-09-2009
Hi, Howard !
"You lucky, lucky Bastard!" :lol: :lol:
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - caiusbeerquitius - 01-09-2009
Quote:There were Romans before there was Caesar.
Noo!? REALLY!?
As I said above, there is a working typology for the Greek, Hellenistic and Republican period. It could be better, but it works. I think it is utterly impossible to identify e.g. helmets from the punic wars period as "Roman". They might be from anywhere in Italy. That´s why I suggested Caesar as a starting point. One could also take Sulla / Marius, but IMO the helmet findings from this period are hard to be identified and scarce.
Quote:There may also be questions concerning the Agen-Port types (why are these considered together? They are really very different in appearence - whatever their origins.)That´s what I meant with
Quote:Also: What to do with the eastern and western Celtic helmet traditions?
Quote:There is? Then why are we bothering? Surely Republilcan Rome is easy - just M or C (for infantry at least). This illustrates just some of the difficulty of attempting a typology based on dates. Concentrate on the physical characteristics of the helmets - that's all we need to consider. Anything else is a red herring. I repeat - we do not have reliable dates in the majority of cases and any tytpology must work for ALL CASES!
Are we talking about helmets that are "Roman" or about helmets that "were used by the Romans". If the latter, we´ll have loads of work for anything earlier than the 1st c. BCE... ^^
Of course you are right with this statement. Some helmets are dated absolutely, though. For the Niederbieber types e.g. we also have a quite good idea in which period they were used. Same goes for the Mont. Rieti, Buggenum and Mannheim tpes (See: G. Waurick, Helme in Caesars Heer, Mainz, 1990.) It gets quite spongy for the Weisenau and Hagenau types, though.
But, as such, I´d absolutely agree with a typology based on physical characteristica.
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - jho - 01-09-2009
I do not want to appear a spoil sport and I do find this thread very interesting but I still believe that any general type of typology which would attempt to cover all sorts of Roman helmets based on certain typological criteria would be destined for failure.
The very broad typology cited by Christian Koepfer:
Quote:Montefortino
(Buggenum?)
Mannheim (Jockey-cap)
Weiler /Koblenz-Bubenheim
Hagenau (Coolus)
Weisenau (Imp-Gal and Imp-Ital)
Niederbieber
Heddernheim
Pfrondorf
Worthing
(Mask-Helmets: "Straubing?")
Guisborough / Theilenhofen
Deir-el-Medineh
Intercisa (several)
Burgh Castle
is certainly useful because these type can broadly be associated with a chronology. We may want to discuss some fine tuning, e.g. adding sub-categories to the Weisenau type helmets (e.g. Weisenau with or without eyebrows or with or without brow reinforcements (such as the Weisenau-Guttmann helmets or the Italic A) and changing some categories to subcategories (e.g. Montefortino-Buggenum, Coolus-Mannheim, Weisenau-Niederbieber etc.).
But any subcategories below those general categories in my opinion will be (a) unnecessary with respect to many categories and (b) will have to be based on different qualities for each category.
For e.g. there are certain indications that the thickness of the material may have a chronological or functional relevance with respect to certain helmet types (e.g. a possible tendency of Niederbieber helmets to become thinner over time, a distinction between heavy and light Mannheim helmets), but it may not be relevant to other categories (e.g. the Weisenau helmets).
With respect to the category most dear to most RATers, the Weisenau helmets, these certainly have many unique features which could be used for a typology (presence/absence or form of eyebrows, ear protections, decorative rivets, size and slope of neck guard etc.) but it currently appears very difficult to derive any chronological from these and this exactly is the problem with HRR's work, namely that it assumes a linear development of these features over time (e.g. increased size and slope of neck guard) which is not borne out by the few dated examples we have. Again, I invite everybody to look at these three completely different "Imperial Gallic" helmets, all dated broadly within one generation (around the birth of Christ):
- Imperial Gallic A from Nijmegen with its crude "Gallic" eyebrows,
fully developed Imperial Gallic from Oberaden, and
Imperial Gallic with a large strongly sloping neck guard from Tenedo/Zurzach (no Robinson type either).
Still, just for the fun of it, I would propose the following slight variation of Christian Koepfer's typology:
(1) Montefortino Helmets
(1.1) "classic Montefortino" ("Helme mit Wellenranke")
(1.2) Montefortino - Buggenum (no decoration)
(2) Jockey-cap Helmets
(2.1) Mannheim
(2.1.1) "light" Mannheim
(2.1.2) "heavy" Mannheim
(2.2) Hagenau
(3) Pseudo-Attic helmets
(3.1) Weiler
(3.2) Koblenz-Bubenheim
(3.3) Witcham Gravel?
(3.4) Guisborough
(3.5) Worthing (see also type 5)
(4) Weisenau helmets
(4.1) Weisenau-Mainz helmets (with eyebrows and brow reinforcement)
[subcategories to be discussed, potentially the form of crest attachment may be relevant]
(4.2) Weisenau-Cremona helmets (w/o eyebrows but with brow reinforcement)
(4.2.1) "simple" helmets (most Imperial Italic types such as Kiel, Cremona)
(4.2.1) Krefeld/Niedermönter helmets (with decorative applied cross banding)
(4.2.1) Hebron/Theilenhofen helmets (with "functional" applied cross banding)
(4.3) Weisenau-Guttmann helmets (w/o eyebrows or brow reinforcement)
(4.4) Weisenau-Niederbieber
(4.4.1) [possibly] "heavy" types
(4.4.2) [possibly] light types (e.g. Rainau-Buch, although it has recently been suggested that this was not a functional helmet at all but rather intended as decoration for a statue!)
(4.5) Weisenau-Heddernheim
(5.) Masked Helmets
(5.1) Pseudo-Attic helmets with cheek pieces and separate mask (Kalkriese)
(5.2) Pseudo-Attic helmets with a "low" brow (Nijmegen)
(5.2.1) type Nijmegen
(5.2.2) type Worthing
(5.3) all other helmets with face mask
(the difference to 5.2 being the attachment of the mask higher up the head than the brow which may make them unsuitable for combat use)
(5.3.1) [subcategories already developed by Junkelmann]
(6.) Ridge Helmets
(6.1) one piece bowl (Fernpass)
(6.2) two piece bowl
(6.3) four piece
(6.4) six piece
[subcategories could be developed based on the presence or absence of a crest, the form and attachment of cheek pieces etc.]
(7.) Spangenhelme
[subcategories already developed by M. Vogt.]
The tricky part will be the development of subcategories for the Weisenau-Mainz helmets.
Also, we have not even started discussion on cheek pieces!
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - Tarbicus - 01-09-2009
I doubt this will ever be solved, and every alternative solution seems to make it more complicated.
Aren't we getting to a point where we may as well refer to every helmet as its <Robinson Type + find spot> ? Or we could just mix letters as there are helmets appearing that share characteristics of what were previously distinct types.
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - marcos - 01-09-2009
As I said ,I think the problem is the working method. Without it , every musings will not have end.
Furthermore, if we want a new classification , because the Robinson one is overdated, seems very strange go on using the some definitions again(montefortino, coolus ...).
Russell-Robinson helmet typology - Paullus Scipio - 01-09-2009
Christian wrote:
Quote:But, as such, I´d absolutely agree with a typology based on physical characteristica....and there's a problem right there.
There is much more to a Roman helmet typology than just appearance/style/physical characteristics, as R-R recognised and as I have been trying to point out here. Any typology based on just physical appearance is foolish, and overlooks important factors.
As Christian recognises, such a typology only works for a limited period from Caesar's day to the third century or so onward at best, and yet still does not cover everything. Such a limited typology, which could be overthrown by the next find, is all but worthless. :roll:
Quote:As I said above, there is a working typology for the Greek, Hellenistic and Republican period. It could be better, but it works......I would dispute this. For a start, such an assertion is based on the fact that there are fewer types/examples extant than for Imperial times, and is simply untrue anyway!
What is true is that until the primacy of Rome over Italy ( i.e. roughly the period of the second punic war, or immediately after), it is better to speak of "Italian" rather than "Roman" Helmet styles.
In short, you can't develop a typology without considering historical factors as well as physical, nor can you develop a 'system' based purely on, say, the first three centuries A.D. simply because that is where most of our present evidence is concentrated.