+- 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 - Simplex - 11-30-2009
Hello Caratacus,
...inspiring to read, so I got some ideas about it which I herewith propose.
1) Cheek guards ? (Ear protection attached here or at the helmet-bowl ? )
2) Why not using a numerical system for most parts ? Easier to understand through all the motherlanguages. (Or keep it in Latin ?!)
e.g. yes= 1, no=0 ; unknown= - ; since "Cu" and "Fe" are common knowledge this could stay as a first characteristic/typification.
I know that a typification of different shapes/parts by numbers is open to misunderstandings, but less we subscribe to one "lingua franca" in Archeology, I think that using numbers might have an edge over a description by letters in international use. Open to discussion, though. :wink:
Just my 2 cents ....
Greez
Simplex
...and now for something COMPLETELY diff'rent ....... :wink:
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - caiusbeerquitius - 11-30-2009
Yes, Monty Python. Of course. Just love´em
I like it. All you need is a reference table
2C1 or so.
e.g.: CuH1B2A3C1 or so... maybe with tacks... Cu-H-1-B-2-A-3-C-1
Or we make it a bit easier for people to follow what we are talking about by setting certain criteria, which make it easier to immediately see what one is talking about, without leaning away too far from the established system.
Find names for helmet groups:
"Montefortino"
"Coolus"
"Imperial Gallic"+"Imperial Italic"+"Niederbieber": e.g. "Imperial"?
"Parade helmets"+"Mask Helmets"
"Bubenweiler" + etc. "Cavalry Helmets" (Attic types)
"Ridge Helmets"
etc.
Then start Material and details etc., if findspot known: include it, can be a necessary information.
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - Caratacus - 11-30-2009
For any classification system to be workable/useful it should be (a) unambiguous, (b) easily understood, © not rely on subjective criteria, (d) flexible and (e) not use reference points that are vague or obscure. There may be more things that could be added here, but you get the idea.
The advantage of using a letter is that it immediately keys to the criteria. "U" obviously means 'unknown', "Y" means 'yes', "N" means 'no' and so on. "3" wouldn't mean a thing without the crib beside you.
The disadvantage in using find spots comes under several headings. It isn't unambiguous, for example. There is a considerable overlap between the Montefortino and the Coolus types. There would be interminable arguements about where one type finishes and the other starts (as there are already). If it's made of copper alloy, has a brow guard and has a hemispherical helmet bowl, then it doesn't matter whether you think it came from Italy or France - you've typed it and now know what it looks like. If it is all those things but is made of iron, then it's something else - and so on. It also comes under (e); if you don't know exactly what a "Montefortino-Canosa" type is, you're stymied!
The HRR 'system', as has been mentioned here elsewhere before, suffers from its problems (but fewer than the 'first find spot' one does, IMO). If you want to describe "something completely different", then you need to get away from what he was using where this has proved to be dodgy. Dates are one of the prblem and an assumption that there was a developmental track that can be traced as a result of this. Wrong assumptions are another. Were helmets of a particular 'type' actually worn by cavalry or infantry? In other words, does it really, really, matter whether it's a cavalry or an infantry helm? If it doesn't - then there is no point in including this in your list of criteria, IMO.
One of the advantages of a mnemonic system is that, once the thing is up and working, you can use a spreadsheet and then tell it to 'sort' the entries. What this will do is group all the helmets with particular criteria together. You can then use this to refine the system, should it prove to be defective in some way (so, e.g. if you hadn't put the metal at the beginning, you would find that some of the IGs would end up mixed in with the Coolus types - because they would both have hemispherical bowls, with a brown guard and horizontal neck guards). I know this works for samian pottery ovolos, because I've done it - but the mnemonic is far shorter than what we are looking at here, with only around 7 'terms' in it.
Caratacus
(Dr Mike Thomas)
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - caiusbeerquitius - 12-01-2009
Quote:The advantage of using a letter is that it immediately keys to the criteria. "U" obviously means 'unknown', "Y" means 'yes', "N" means 'no' and so on. "3" wouldn't mean a thing without the crib beside you.True
Quote:The disadvantage in using find spots comes under several headings. It isn't unambiguous, for example. There is a considerable overlap between the Montefortino and the Coolus types. There would be interminable arguements about where one type finishes and the other starts (as there are already). If it's made of copper alloy, has a brow guard and has a hemispherical helmet bowl, then it doesn't matter whether you think it came from Italy or France - you've typed it and now know what it looks like. If it is all those things but is made of iron, then it's something else - and so on. It also comes under (e); if you don't know exactly what a "Montefortino-Canosa" type is, you're stymied!Also true. What I meant was more like e.g. CuBYNNNNNYYNNN (Schaan, Liechtenstein)
Quote:The HRR 'system', as has been mentioned here elsewhere before, suffers from its problems (but fewer than the 'first find spot' one does, IMO). If you want to describe "something completely different", then you need to get away from what he was using where this has proved to be dodgy. Dates are one of the prblem and an assumption that there was a developmental track that can be traced as a result of this. Wrong assumptions are another. Were helmets of a particular 'type' actually worn by cavalry or infantry? In other words, does it really, really, matter whether it's a cavalry or an infantry helm? If it doesn't - then there is no point in including this in your list of criteria, IMO.Absolutely. What I meant above was that we could sort out the major "groups" and give them a flashy name, as my example with the "Imperial" helmets.
But basically you are right, of course.
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - Caratacus - 12-01-2009
Oh yes - once the system is up and running, and the computer does its magic 'sort' function, you should (hopefully) end up with groups of helmets with similar characteristics. We can then have some fun deciding what to call them! :lol: 8) And that, Folks (as the Goons used to say) is "where the story really starts"! (Apologies to those not from This Sceptr'd Isle, and also those under around 45 years of age, who have probably never heard of the Goons! No, I'm not going to explain!)
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - Peroni - 12-02-2009
Getting somewhere now!
I think we could put point 8. under point 3. Eyebrows are decoration no? Would you class tinning as decoration, or would that be part of point 1.?
CuSn
FeSn
How about cheek guard(s) present? Y/N
Cheek guard plain/decorated/embossed (P/D/E)
Cheek guard Material Cu/Fe/ Fe - edged in Cu (Cu/Fe/FeE)
The helmet from a private collection displayed at Carnuntum recently has a brass bowl and iron cheek guards. It's the only one like this I am aware of but... Using Mike's initial points would not give a clear description of the entire helmet, just the bowl. With these new points.. you get a Cu-H-N-Y-S-Y-S-Y-Y-Y-A-Y-P-FeE-N
1) What's the bowl made of?: Cu Fe or U (copper, iron or unknown)
(2) What shape is the bowl? B (bulbous), C (conical), H (hemispherical), S (segmented), U (unknown, if damaged)
(3) Is the bowl decorated in any way? Y, N, U
(4) Neck guard (i.e. is there one?): Y, N, U
(5) Neck guard orientation: H (horizontal), S (sloped), N (none)
(6) Brow guard: Y, N, U
(7) Brow guard orientation: H, S, N, U
(8) Crest knob: Y, N
(9)Crest knob decoration? Y, N, U
(10) Is there ear protection? Y, N
(12) Was/is ear protection integral to the helmet bowl, or applied? I, A
(13) Are there cheek guards?: Y, N
(14)Cheek guard plain/decorated/embossed (P/D/E)
(15)Cheek guard Material Cu/Fe/ Fe - edged in Cu (Cu/Fe/FeE)
(16) Is there a face mask? Y, N
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - caiusbeerquitius - 12-02-2009
Quote:1) What's the bowl made of?: Cu Fe or U (copper, iron or unknown)Hooray!
(2) What shape is the bowl? B (bulbous), C (conical), H (hemispherical), S (segmented), U (unknown, if damaged)
(3) Is the bowl decorated in any way? Y, N, U
(4) Neck guard (i.e. is there one?): Y, N, U
(5) Neck guard orientation: H (horizontal), S (sloped), N (none)
(6) Brow guard: Y, N, U
(7) Brow guard orientation: H, S, N, U
(8) Crest knob: Y, N
(9)Crest knob decoration? Y, N, U
(10) Is there ear protection? Y, N
(12) Was/is ear protection integral to the helmet bowl, or applied? I, A
(13) Are there cheek guards?: Y, N
(14)Cheek guard plain/decorated/embossed (P/D/E)
(15)Cheek guard Material Cu/Fe/ Fe - edged in Cu (Cu/Fe/FeE)
(16) Is there a face mask? Y, N
I think regarding the eyebrows as decoration only is too much interpretation. The also have a function, i.e. strengthening the front of the skull
Tinning: I think we should then rather say:
- tinned (y)
- partially tinned (p)
- not tinned (n)
For some helmets we have a metallurgical analysis, e.g. the Haltern helmet has a 30% tin-bronze skull and a brass brow guard... hmmm...
So maybe we should make the material list a bit more detailed for the copper alloys, like CuSn, CuZn, FE, U.
Same for the face masks
An other important feature is the presence of enamel on rivets, methinks. (Dating)
1) What's the bowl made of?: CuSn, CuZn, Fe or U
(2) What shape is the bowl? B (bulbous), C (conical), H (hemispherical), S (segmented), U (unknown, if damaged)
(3) Is the bowl decorated in any way? Y, N, U
(4) Does the skull have eyebrows? Y, N, U
(5) Neck guard (i.e. is there one?): Y, N, U
(6) Neck guard orientation: H (horizontal), S (sloped), N (none)
(7) Brow guard: Y, N, U
(8) Brow guard orientation: H, S, N, U
(9) Crest knob: Y, N
(10) Crest knob decoration? Y, N, U
(11) Is there ear protection? Y, N
(12) Was/is ear protection integral to the helmet bowl, or applied? I, A
(14) What are the ear guards made of? CuSn, CuZn, FE or U
(15) Are there cheek guards?: Y, N
(16) Cheek guard plain/decorated/embossed (P/D/E)
(17) What are the cheek guards made of? CuSn, CuZn, FE or U
(18) Is there a face mask? Y, N
(19) What is the face mask made of? CuSn, CuZn, FE or U
(20) Is the face mask decorated? Y, N, U
(21) Are there enamelled rivets on the helmet? Y, N, U
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - Peroni - 12-02-2009
Now there's a very concise list of attributes, which covers just about any eventuality!! (EXcept cross-bracing :wink: )
Cross-bracing? Y/N
Hemispherical or Vertical? H/V
Many more and it may get confusing.
these attributes would certainly allow helmets to be sorted into Main Groups which Mike mentioned earlier (spreadsheet 'sort' function).
Names for these groups?
"Montefortino"
"Coolus/Hagenau"
"Weisenau" (Covers both HRR's "Imperial Italic & Gallic" which can sometimes be contentious)
"Niederbieber"
"Mask Helmets" (covers all types)
"Bubenweiler" + etc. "Cavalry Helmets" (Attic types)
"Ridge Helmets"
"Spangenhelm"
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - Gaius Julius Caesar - 12-02-2009
Now that you've hit on a simplified system, its all systems fgo from here , eh!!!! :roll:
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - Olaf - 12-02-2009
Great System, but take care to clearly point out what the code means to anybody that might use it in the future.
I say this because I have noted the classification from a chart in "Gladiatoren, das Spiel mit dem Tod" by Junkelmann being used in two very recent publications.
Helmets were described as being of Type M/G and of Type G according to Junkelmann without saying that the M stands for "Military use" and the G for "Gladiatorial use".
In one instance a Type G helmet (a Republican Murmillo) was described as a repulican military helmet.
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - Caratacus - 12-02-2009
Erm, er .... :oops:
Well, fact is folks, that .... well (ahem) I started that off as a bit of a joke! Well, only half a joke actually. But it seems to have been taken seriously - and perhaps that's not a bad thing after all. I think we definitely ended up with the: "something completely different that we were looking for. At least it's got everyone thinking about how we could go about this in a more (if you'll excuse the expression), "scientific manner". So, the joke's very definitely on me! :lol:
I think you can see that my contention that the system is flexible certainly works. There were several cases where people came up with some additional characteristics, which could just be added in. It's also easy to move things around, so our 'decorated' category can easily accomodate the 'eyebrows' as well as other types of decoration.
Perhaps we should ask Jasper to add an additional field to the helmets DB - called "Code", or something similar? Now there are some 20 fields in this mnemonic, and around 650 helmets on the DB, so that's (let me see ....) 7,000 entries? :lol: Anyone got a spare weekend? :wink:
Caratacus
(Dr. Mike Thomas)
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - jkaler48 - 12-02-2009
It looks like the system described would be useful if entered into a computer database which could be queried like "show me all helmets that have x Y and Z similiar features.
One problem I see that is some helmets that may have originally had the same features would not be grouped together because of damage or parts loss. Some things computers do really well and others humans are still better at.
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - Caratacus - 12-02-2009
Yes, it certainly would. This very idea is being pioneered with the samian ovolo work at present. It works, too!
Caratacus
(Dr. Mike Thomas)
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - Olaf - 12-03-2009
Yeah, but thats what the U or "Unknown" can be used for.
So for instance you could query iron helmets with cheekpieces and either include or exclude those were cheekpieces mightz be missing.
Also when grouping you will have to determine the progression, i.e. which parameters are strong indicators and which might not be so important.
Quote:It looks like the system described would be useful if entered into a computer database which could be queried like "show me all helmets that have x Y and Z similiar features.
One problem I see that is some helmets that may have originally had the same features would not be grouped together because of damage or parts loss. Some things computers do really well and others humans are still better at.
Re: H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology - caiusbeerquitius - 12-03-2009
Maybe we can goup the helmets and split work, eg database p. 1-10, 10-20 etc.
Then everybody exchanges the results and checks a package made by someone else.