H.R.Robinson Helmet Typology

[Paullus Scipio]

Caratacus/Mike wrote:

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.

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?

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.

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.