H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology

[jkaler48]

I vote for the "mighty tome" option!
It would include:

All known helmets and parts
Detailed color photos
Detailed measurements
Find location and other information
Metallurgical analysis
Charts and graphs
Current/last known location
A section on how to spot fakes
Photos of reconstructions

Be available at your local bookstore and only cost $24.99!!!!

And, as soon as it is published, be out of date with the first new find! And as the body of data grows, the more impractical a dead-tree book becomes. The only option for a comprehensive catalogue of material is an online one (where you could construct as many and varied typologies as took your fancy from the raw data) and it was that idea that I tested with Armamentarium, the drawback being that it cost time and money to produce (you can certainly use community effort to supply the time in a wiki sort of set up but the money for the rights to photos is always the killer and for a proper publication, museum-quality photos would be a must).

Mike Bishop

I like the online resource idea perhaps the RAT helmet database could be
revised into a wiki. One major problem for the "ordinary" person is that
access to helmets is very limited. At the museum: "HI I am Joe Shmo from Idaho can I get your 2000 year old Roman helmets out to measure and photograph them and metal test them?" "And I don't have any credentials and the information will be published free on the internet and you won't get any money for it."

[Caratacus]

Of course the helmet classification of HRR is outdated - it was constructed over 30 years ago when there were far fewer helmets known than there are now! It does, however, have one major advantage still over attaching find sites to helmet types - each of the types that Robinson proposed were defined by specific characteristics. Now, I grant that you have to hunt through the book to extract them, but they are there - spelled out for you.

For me, the problem with calling something a 'Weisenau' (or whatever), is precisely what is such an animal? And what happens with the sub-types? What happens is that we get ever longer groups of names, with less and less clarity about what we are talking about. So, in what way is a "Montefortino-Canosa" different to a "Montefortino-somewhere else"? Even if you had a photograph of the item in front of you, it might be taken from an angle that will prevent you coming to the proper conclusion as to what your unknown sample is. A list of defined characteristics, however, eliminates that difficulty. We can't all work in museums where there are hoards of the things lying around in cases.

There is also a problem with the "one-offs". At Caerleon we have an "Imperial Gallic, Type J" - which seems to be unique in that it has a large angled brow guard as well as an angled neck guard (which is how Robinson separated and distinguished it from the preceding types). Is this unique? Was it a 'Friday-afternoon' job on the part of the armourer? Or are there many more out there somewhere that we just haven't found yet? And what about a 'type' where the provenance is unknown? That same IG helmet is supposed to have come from Hungary (Bregetio) - but I can trace it only as far back as 1913 and a collection in Vienna. Are we to call this the 'Bregetio Imperial Gallic' when we are not even sure if it came from there?

I would be the first to agree that we should revise and revisit the HRR classification, especially as so many more helmets (at least 500) are known now than was the case when he put his classification together. Some of HRR's opinions are now known to be incorrect. There is at least one helmet that he included twice, in two different categories (which means that the "Imperial Italic A" type doesn't actually exist!) We can ask the question is there, in fact, any such thing as an "Imperial Italic" group of helmets, particularly as so few of them seem to be known (we do have one more in Cardiff - but that has no provenance either).

I would opine, however, that any system (for classifying anything at all) that is based on defined characteristics is a superior system to one that depends so much on opinion and a comparison that may be difficult to make in sufficient detail to have any real meaning. Where the arguement should lie is in how we categorise such a system for maximum use. In other words, I completely agree with Mike B that a typology is a tool and it's up to people to make sure that the tool is as effective as is possible. Mike's further point that an on-line catalogue would be a decided advantage (because of its immediacy) is a valid one as well - which is what we are trying to do here on RAT. As he says, though, the major drawback is the issue of copyright for illustrative material. Thus far we are about 40% of the way there - and that's taken around 2 years to achieve!

Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)

[caiusbeerquitius]

Loads of good thoughts here.
Does anyone have some specific ideas for a consistant typology? I´ll be brainstorming on this as well a bit over the next days.

[marcos]

CARATACUS/MIKE,
I understand you are working on a new data base of roman helmets.
If this is right , may be I can help you.
I can have access to 8 helmets (4 in private collections and 4 in an italian museum) .
Further , a friend of mine knows a german private collector , which has 2 other helmets.

If you want some pics or other informations about these helmets, just ask.

[Caratacus]

I'm askin'!

Seriously, any and all information - including pictures, is urgently wanted. If you can supply pictures, then proper acknowledgement will be made when they are put into the database. The db currently stands at around 230 or so items. I do have data on many more yet to go up (finding the time .....) Most of these do not have illustrative material that I can use at present because it is under copyright restrictions.

If you have access to these helmets, it would help enormously if you can get measurements - at least diameter, width, height and weight (all in metric measurements!)

You can send the information to Jasper, or directly to me at: [email protected]

Thanks, Marco, for the offer!

Caratacus/Mike Thomas

[Magnus]

What about some type of typography that includes:

1. Helmet type Auxilliary, Infantry, Cavalry etc. These could be represented with the appropriate letter codes, "A", "I", and "C".

2. Helmet era...ER could be early republic, LR late republic, etc. etc.

3. Then assign a geological code...France for example could be divide up into several regions, assigned a number..."FR1" would mean France area 1.

4. Keep the gallic / itallic designations, but expand it, so late roman helmets have their own designation.

So some kind of helmet found in France area 3, infantry type from the late republic era would be like: Gallic C, LRFR5.

Variants could be designated by a "V1" or "V2" for each "version".

Ok, it is clunky...but maybe someone could come up with a better codex than me. But this way you don't have super long names describing the helmet, just a quick easy code/acronmym that people could readily use and identify.

Of course, i'm also very tired...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Awwww no more tounge twisting Niederbiebers, Montefortino, or Niedermormters? :lol:

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

What about some type of typography that includes:

1. Helmet type Auxilliary, Infantry, Cavalry etc. These could be represented with the appropriate letter codes, "A", "I", and "C".

2. Helmet era...ER could be early republic, LR late republic, etc. etc.

3. Then assign a geological code...France for example could be divide up into several regions, assigned a number..."FR1" would mean France area 1.

4. Keep the gallic / itallic designations, but expand it, so late roman helmets have their own designation.

So some kind of helmet found in France area 3, infantry type from the late republic era would be like: Gallic C, LRFR5.

Variants could be designated by a "V1" or "V2" for each "version".

Ok, it is clunky...but maybe someone could come up with a better codex than me. But this way you don't have super long names describing the helmet, just a quick easy code/acronmym that people could readily use and identify.

Of course, i'm also very tired...

It is a good system, but the problem is no one will be able to remember which code - 'cause that's what it is, your Gallic C LRFR5 - fits with which helmet. If you now speak of a Gallic A, everyone knows (more or less) how it looks. A LRFR5 is a lot harder to remember.

Second problem is, if you include the finding place, you actually identify the specific helmet and not the type. This is a "problem" with the HRR classification as well: as GJC brings up the Niedermormter and Montefortino helmets. If somewhere else a helmet is found of the same type of the Montefortino find, it will be called the same; because then every one knows what kind of helmet you're speaking of. However, this is a complete contradiction, as it should be named after it's own finding place, as has happened with the Monterfortino find.
So the finding place included would be good for the specific helmet, but not for the type. And with that system the name of the city/village/... should be used, not a region. Because when two helmets of the same type are found in the region... :lol: (Yes, same city is possible as well, I know... but still.)

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

I think it's impossible to be sure 100% if a helmet its for cavalry or infantry, and a lot more if it belongs to a legionary or an auxiliar.

I think too, it's an mistake to use "gallic" or "italic" because we don't know if those helmets were produced in Gaul or Italy. For example, why we don't use itallic for the Montefortinos and coolus? It's very probable that were made in Italy...

As we have talk a lot of times, a helmet it's a thing dificult to mark in an specific type. Most of them were made one by one, so there were minor variations between one and the other.

I think to made a closed tipology it have no sense by itself. A tipology is used to compares a thing with another. If we have an specific helmet we can made the comparation with other ones. For reference, i think it's better to understand if we use the old tipologies than if we start an alphanumeric tipology.

In roman pottery, black glazed, Morel have done a very complicated tipology with some numbers in relationship with caracteristics of the piece (the lip, with foot or not, etc...). Personally, i think it's complicated and many scholars continue using the old Lamboglia clasification, less complicated and with a lot less variants.

[caiusbeerquitius]

What about a clear typology like Dragendorff´s for terra sigillata:
[url:30x7ti9r]http://www.potsherd.uklinux.net/atlas/types/sigillata/index.php?more=DR37[/url]

[Caratacus]

What about a clear typology like Dragendorff´s for terra sigillata:

The Dragendorf 'classification' is entirely visual and depends on simple shape comparison. It is also not exhaustive, as there are 'supplementary' classifications due to Curle, Ritterling, Webster, Ludovici, etc for forms that Dragendorff didn't know about! In short, 'samian' pottery is a far simpler proposition than what we are faced with here for helmets.

Ok, it is clunky...but maybe someone could come up with a better codex than me. But this way you don't have super long names describing the helmet, just a quick easy code/acronmym that people could readily use and identify.

Would that it were so! Someone (OK, Geoffrey Darnell) tried a mnemonic system like this for the ovolo designs on decorated samian ware (this is a line of egg-shaped designs that appear on the tops of certain bowl types - there are hundreds of them). It's fine if you are working with the system on a regular basis but otherwise the line of up to 8 or 9 letters and numbers might as well be written in Greek!

I agree that it really isn't possible to decide whether a given helmet was used by Legionaries or Auxiliary soldiers. The supposition that the Auxiliary items were somehow cheaper and tawdrier than those used by the 'pucka' Roman legionary soldiers has yet to be proven. In many cases, the figures shown on tombstones are only identifiable as legionary or auxiliary soldiers because of the dedication beneath - there's nothing about their equipment that favours one type over the other. About the only exceptions to that would be the helmets worn by the Levantine archers - and Robinson only lists one of those. It is also probably impossile to decide in many cases whether a helmet was an infantry or a cavalry type (were the masks used only for hippika gymnasia 'games' or were they also used by the signiferii/vexillarii/imaginiferii officers?)

Any classification would have to include only genuine differences in design, IMO. "One-off" examples (like the IG, "J" we have here at Caerleon) would be probably better off simply being listed under a general heading, rather than being regarded as being a distinctive sub-type. If more of them come to light, then this could be ammended (yet another reason for doing this on the Internet!)

So, what would I do? Something like this (subject to change on further consideration):
(1) Divide into broad groups first, e.g. "Celtic", "Imperial", "Late Imperial", "Post Imperial", "Masked", "Parade", etc (not exhaustive here, you understand).
(2) Where necessary, sub-divide these. So, e.g. "masked" would be split into "male" and "female" types.

My "celtic" types, for example, would include those that we now know as Montefortino, Coolus, Cool-Mannheim, Agen and Port types.

I've always been worried by HRR's division beween Montefortino and Coolus types. There are differences in manufacture (some being cast, others spun) but there seems to be a lot of overlap in the middle between the two categories. To my eyes, "Conical celtic" and "Bowl celtic" seems a better division. That's just one example of how careful you have to be in divising any sort of a typology for something that has so many nuances and which was in use for such a long period of time!

Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)

[marcos]

but I think is a mistake to not have a link to the period. That is one of the main features , often extremely influencing the helmets.
Think to the montefortino, and the difference between first and last period , for example.

[Magnus]

Don't forget, whatever system is theoretically adopted, would be come familiar to people through use.

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

I think the most important groups would be the period indeed, wouldn't it?
That would come first in the name (1), then a type of helmet, as we now know the Coolus or Imperial Italic (but these could be other names as well) (2), then a letter for more specific characteristics (3), and to define exactly which helmet you're talking about, the finding spot.(4)

What do you think of this?

(1) would be early republican, late republican, early imperial, late imperial,...
(2) would be based on rather big similarities, such as now the Montefortino, Coolus, Imperial Gallic, Imperial Italic,... are used.
(3) would be exactly as it is used now.
(4) finding place, but this would not be included when talking about a certain type, only when talking about the find itself.

What other properties are important, or could be so, to classify the helmets?
Maybe infantry/cavalry can be added, but to divide them into auxiliary/legionairy would be extremely hard and probably just not correct; as we don't know who used it about all of them.

[Peroni]

Any classification would have to include only genuine differences in design, IMO. "One-off" examples (like the IG, "J" we have here at Caerleon)

There's another one very much like it in Vienna Mike - albeit with applied cross-bracing.