H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology

[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)