01-09-2009, 03:02 PM
Weeee! There are just so many questions/posts since my last of just yesterday evening that I don't know where to start! At least this has got people fired up and talking about this instead of moaning about the drawbacks of HRR's work. So, not in any particular order ....
Yes, it may be correct to regard anything before GIC as being 'Italian', rather than 'Roman' (actually, I think we need to go back before that to the 'Social War' at the time of Sulla, when there was a real question as to who was Roman and who was not). However, what we are talking about here is a continuous period of historical development as the Roman state expanded and eventually came to control the whole of Europe (up to the Rhine/Danube frontier, anyway). Does it matter too much what we call it? OK, maybe we are going to disagree on that - but it doesn't help in trying to construct a typology for these helmets, IMO.
I like the categorisation advanced by Jens Horstkotte above. It retains a lot of things that are good and can probably be regarded as being generally accepted. He's right, however, that the problem is the Weisenau-Mainz helmets group. It also needs to be remembered that this is a relatively small group, as compared with the Montefortino types, for example. Excluding those in private hands that I don't know about, I've got information on only some 40 helmets from this grouping. So, have we got all the variants here?
Well, we're not going to agree on this one either! It's a bit of a circular arguement. If I plonked a helmet down in front of you and told you nothing about where it came from, or whether there was any evidence found with it that allowed you to date it (even approximately), what would you do? To answer my own question, I assume that you would compare it with other helmets as to its physical characteristics. This is probably the situation with the majority of helmets. A look through Junkelmann's work on the Guttmann collection shows that he is assigning dates on the basis of style, because in most of these cases there is no other dating evidence and no information as to where the helmet has come from. As to overlooking "other important factors", I have to ask what these might be - and would they obtain for every helmet that we encounter? If they are of universal importance, then of course we should consider these and incorporate them into our categorisation/typology system.
Not so far as I know (shame - crying out for a reprint at the very least). I believe that Mike Bishop mentioned that there are copyright issues with HRR's family when we were looking at using the photographic material from the book? You will find the HRR classification criteria in RAT - I teased this out around 18 months ago and Jasper put it somewhere here. :oops:
By all means! But superficial appearance is usually all we have to go on. You try and get a museum to open its display cases and let you have a play with the contents! The same is true for such things as the thickness of the metal (which may or may not have relevance). To obtain this information you have to be able to handle the item and curators are very, very chary about letting this degree of handling go on (with good reason - the damn things are around 2,000 years old!) I don't doubt that the characteristics underlined in the above quote are interesting and informative but are they available?
Well, it's this 'cross-over of characteristics' that is the problem, I feel. If it walks like a dog and barks like a dog, it probably is a dog! The Montefortino E type, (p.22) have (for the 3 examples he quotes - not a large group upon which to base a conclusion) all the characteristics of Coolus D/E types, including the reinforcing brow guards being either solid or L-shaped. He even says that the crest knob on one example is made of a softer alloy which is then 'worked into the bowl' - i.e. it isn't integral. I'm looking at the two pictures now, and I'm damned if I can see any real difference between the two types (Coolus E on p.32). Given that (as has been said) these things were made individually by craftsmen, there are bound to be minor differences as to shape. To my way of thinking, a Montefortino should have a very bulbous, even conical form. These later divisions of HRR of this type look like versions of the "Jockey-cap" shape to me!
Enough, already! Time for tea and toast!
Caratacus
(MIke Thomas)
Yes, it may be correct to regard anything before GIC as being 'Italian', rather than 'Roman' (actually, I think we need to go back before that to the 'Social War' at the time of Sulla, when there was a real question as to who was Roman and who was not). However, what we are talking about here is a continuous period of historical development as the Roman state expanded and eventually came to control the whole of Europe (up to the Rhine/Danube frontier, anyway). Does it matter too much what we call it? OK, maybe we are going to disagree on that - but it doesn't help in trying to construct a typology for these helmets, IMO.
I like the categorisation advanced by Jens Horstkotte above. It retains a lot of things that are good and can probably be regarded as being generally accepted. He's right, however, that the problem is the Weisenau-Mainz helmets group. It also needs to be remembered that this is a relatively small group, as compared with the Montefortino types, for example. Excluding those in private hands that I don't know about, I've got information on only some 40 helmets from this grouping. So, have we got all the variants here?
Quote:Any typology based on just physical appearance is foolish, and overlooks important factors.
Well, we're not going to agree on this one either! It's a bit of a circular arguement. If I plonked a helmet down in front of you and told you nothing about where it came from, or whether there was any evidence found with it that allowed you to date it (even approximately), what would you do? To answer my own question, I assume that you would compare it with other helmets as to its physical characteristics. This is probably the situation with the majority of helmets. A look through Junkelmann's work on the Guttmann collection shows that he is assigning dates on the basis of style, because in most of these cases there is no other dating evidence and no information as to where the helmet has come from. As to overlooking "other important factors", I have to ask what these might be - and would they obtain for every helmet that we encounter? If they are of universal importance, then of course we should consider these and incorporate them into our categorisation/typology system.
Quote:A real problem is perhaps that most of us don't have a copy of Robinson's opus to inspect. If the intention of the thread is to go "Beyond Robinson", then a lot of participants (me, for example!) are at a disadvantage.
(3) Given (2), does anyone know whether Robinson's book is available as an e-book?
Not so far as I know (shame - crying out for a reprint at the very least). I believe that Mike Bishop mentioned that there are copyright issues with HRR's family when we were looking at using the photographic material from the book? You will find the HRR classification criteria in RAT - I teased this out around 18 months ago and Jasper put it somewhere here. :oops:
Quote:I guess the point here is that we should not fall into the trap of basing a typology purely on superficial appearance ( e.g. lumping together Monefortino and Coolus 'D' types), but as R-R recognised, also take into account construction methods/metal-working traditions/cultural origins of the helmet as well.
By all means! But superficial appearance is usually all we have to go on. You try and get a museum to open its display cases and let you have a play with the contents! The same is true for such things as the thickness of the metal (which may or may not have relevance). To obtain this information you have to be able to handle the item and curators are very, very chary about letting this degree of handling go on (with good reason - the damn things are around 2,000 years old!) I don't doubt that the characteristics underlined in the above quote are interesting and informative but are they available?
Quote:... 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?
Well, it's this 'cross-over of characteristics' that is the problem, I feel. If it walks like a dog and barks like a dog, it probably is a dog! The Montefortino E type, (p.22) have (for the 3 examples he quotes - not a large group upon which to base a conclusion) all the characteristics of Coolus D/E types, including the reinforcing brow guards being either solid or L-shaped. He even says that the crest knob on one example is made of a softer alloy which is then 'worked into the bowl' - i.e. it isn't integral. I'm looking at the two pictures now, and I'm damned if I can see any real difference between the two types (Coolus E on p.32). Given that (as has been said) these things were made individually by craftsmen, there are bound to be minor differences as to shape. To my way of thinking, a Montefortino should have a very bulbous, even conical form. These later divisions of HRR of this type look like versions of the "Jockey-cap" shape to me!
Enough, already! Time for tea and toast!
Caratacus
(MIke Thomas)
visne scire quod credam? credo orbes volantes exstare.
