12-20-2008, 09:34 PM
The recent miniature review in Ancient Warfare Magazine for a 3rd-c CE mini by Dr. Mike Thomas has made me think about the H.R.Robinson helmet classification once more. In the following I would like to lay down why I think that the H.R.Robinson classification is outdated and should no longer be used by scholars, as well as by the reenactment community. (The Miniature wears a Niederbieber type helmet, which is - defined by the large neck-guard an Infantry helmet)
1. The H.R.Robinson helmet classification is inconsistent. It tries to classify by findspot, (Montefortino), by type (Imperial Gallic / Italic), and by use (Auxiliary Cavalry)
2. The H.R.Robinson helmet classification invokes a system of chronology by typing the helmets alphabetecally. Studies made since Robinson´s work was published have shown that this chronology is in several cases not given. Helmet types that were unknown at all in his time are not included in the system, and not easily includable.
3. The H.R.Robinson helmet classification is not always working in cases where new helmets are found, which may fit several types at once.
4. The H.R.Robinson helmet classification is wrong in the case of auxiliary cavalry helmets - most of them are in fact Infantry helmets.
5. The H.R.Robinson helmet classification serves no real purpose. It would serve a certain purpose if it would work as it was originally intended, showing by type a chronology in helmet development, which would easily help in dating of archaeological context etc. Since the typology does not work in this way, as explained above, it is basically more confusing than helpng. At the moment categorizing a helmet into H.R.Robinson´s typology is often difficult and then, accomplished, serves no other purpose than having it classified.
Thus I think that the older way of classification is much simpler, less confusing, and accurate. This is a mix of classification by findspot or characteristics.
e.g. Hagenau, Weisenau, Montefortino, Buggenum or "Face Helmet", "Mask Helmet" etc.
In that sense it would be even easier to reduce the whole classification simply to first find spots.
Whenever a particular helmet is meant it would still be called by a certain findspot. "Theilenhofen Helmet" or "Weisenau helmet from Straubing" etc...
What do you think?
1. The H.R.Robinson helmet classification is inconsistent. It tries to classify by findspot, (Montefortino), by type (Imperial Gallic / Italic), and by use (Auxiliary Cavalry)
2. The H.R.Robinson helmet classification invokes a system of chronology by typing the helmets alphabetecally. Studies made since Robinson´s work was published have shown that this chronology is in several cases not given. Helmet types that were unknown at all in his time are not included in the system, and not easily includable.
3. The H.R.Robinson helmet classification is not always working in cases where new helmets are found, which may fit several types at once.
4. The H.R.Robinson helmet classification is wrong in the case of auxiliary cavalry helmets - most of them are in fact Infantry helmets.
5. The H.R.Robinson helmet classification serves no real purpose. It would serve a certain purpose if it would work as it was originally intended, showing by type a chronology in helmet development, which would easily help in dating of archaeological context etc. Since the typology does not work in this way, as explained above, it is basically more confusing than helpng. At the moment categorizing a helmet into H.R.Robinson´s typology is often difficult and then, accomplished, serves no other purpose than having it classified.
Thus I think that the older way of classification is much simpler, less confusing, and accurate. This is a mix of classification by findspot or characteristics.
e.g. Hagenau, Weisenau, Montefortino, Buggenum or "Face Helmet", "Mask Helmet" etc.
In that sense it would be even easier to reduce the whole classification simply to first find spots.
Whenever a particular helmet is meant it would still be called by a certain findspot. "Theilenhofen Helmet" or "Weisenau helmet from Straubing" etc...
What do you think?
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
